How do you refute Aquinas?

File: 742 KB, 640x460, Thomas-Aquinas-Ceasefire-640.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Sun Dec 23 13:57:11 2018 No.12274626 [Reply] [Original]

How do you refute Aquinas?

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 23 13:58:58 2018 No.12274632 Richard Dawkins

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 23 14:03:18 2018 No.12274656 >>12274626 KANT

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 23 14:04:11 2018 No.12274659 >>12274626 >>12274632 You don't ;)

Anonymous Sun Dec 23 14:04:47 2018 No.12274663

>>12274626
There are tons of holes in his arguments where he assumes the existence of something as prima facie obvious but doesn't actually provide solid reasoning for it.
These are the most common flaws with his arguments.
Other times he relies on concepts of understanding from Aristotle which are a little outdated or poorly justified.
Those are the main flaws in his arguments, whenever I spot one.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 23 14:06:16 2018 No.12274669 no one here has read aquinas except me

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 23 14:07:03 2018 No.12274674 >>12274669 hes right

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 23 14:07:20 2018 No.12274677 >>12274669 this but unironically

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 23 14:22:16 2018 No.12274733 >>12274626 by not accepting his system of belief

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 23 15:08:44 2018 No.12274916 >>12274626 By dying and seeing if he's right for yourself.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 23 15:11:13 2018 No.12274932 >>12274626 easily? go ask any scientist today if they think his logical system is sound and they will probably just laugh

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 23 15:11:42 2018 No.12274935 >>12274626 can't be done, he's right

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 23 15:13:05 2018 No.12274947 File: 7 KB, 157x204, 157_Ed_Feser_-_Copy.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12274632 Professor Edward Feser challenges Dawkins critique of Aquinas

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 23 15:13:48 2018 No.12274954 >>12274932 >go ask any scientist today if they think his logical system is sound and they will probably just laugh you're wrong

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 23 15:17:58 2018 No.12274978 File: 128 KB, 768x768, Rm8GY5nWdjPBXEv48yTcngMecKJjqijyrDF8XASdLx4.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] like merry, he's irrefutable

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 23 16:13:46 2018 No.12275203 File: 8 KB, 256x300, 131908-004-A3DFC9A4.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Hahahahahahahaha How The Fuck Is First Cause Real Hahahaha Nigga Just Stop Believing In Causality Like Nigga Where Is The Necessary Connection Haha

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 23 16:14:41 2018 No.12275208 >>12274626 i just close my eyes and ears, take this x-fag!

>>	Motoko Sun Dec 23 16:16:02 2018 No.12275214 On /pol/ the Christians try to convert everone else with the five ways. It's very odd.........

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 23 16:17:07 2018 No.12275218 >>12274947 Edward Feser is based af

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 23 16:17:32 2018 No.12275219 >>12274978 >lotr meme’ing >appropriating an unfunny lolbert meme from before the election ha reddit

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 23 16:17:44 2018 No.12275222 >>12275214 christians on /pol/ are a pest

Anonymous Sun Dec 23 16:25:24 2018 No.12275256

>>12274632
>>12274932
Doesn't deserve the time to refute
>>12274656
Kant really just argues past his metaphysics based on his own assumptions, it's not remotely close to a decisive refutation. Though admittedly it's better than I've seen tried by any other major philosopher.
>>12274663
I've never seen outright holes in his arguments. His reliance on Aristotelian notions of causality and change are what you'd argue to refute Thomism, though I've only seen them addressed specifically in Feser's works.

Motoko Sun Dec 23 16:42:12 2018 No.12275355

>>12275256
Ultimately Kant also formulates a form of metaphysics, which isn't too interesting of a discovery since he calls it metaphysics himself. What you're saying is that since Kant also does philosophy, he can't refute other forms of philosophy! The transcendental aesthetic does not actively refute Thomas' arguments, but it makes them appear highly implausible, even though he has some arguments there (see the arguments for the metaphysical idealism of space and time in the TA).

Other than that Kant has CLEAR and accurate arguments against the metaphysical conceptions of ancient and medieval metaphysics. The entire Dialectic of the Critique of Pure Reason is just that, showing how a metaphysical system built upon the premise of dealing with "things in-itself" is bound to contradict itself and suffer from never growing up to become a real science.

It's important to note that Kant never made the claim that he does not believe in the fruitfulness of metaphysics, but that the pursuit of it has never been set in proper foundations like say mathematics or the natural sciences (which is why Hegel thought he could now begin crazy metaphysics resting on Kantian terminology).

Your claim that Kant merely postulates premises which attack Thomas' philosophy is a lazy and incorrect understanding of the Kantian project.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 23 16:42:52 2018 No.12275358 File: 499 KB, 500x213, 1387363408623.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12275219 seething cuz u can't refute it

Anonymous Sun Dec 23 16:47:51 2018 No.12275389

>>12274626
He had insights in debate that were so quick it was like watching Billy the Kid, Summa are student notes, e.g. his five proofs each are still being worked out by scientists, philosophers and theologians
Whole books deal with just one proof
Let’s not fool ourselves
few titans are on his level—Aristotle is one

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 23 17:09:50 2018 No.12275484 i can't he is too smart for me

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 23 17:14:28 2018 No.12275502 >>12275389 >scientists are still working on Aquinas' 5 proofs lmao go share a wine post with facebook mums from church

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 23 17:17:08 2018 No.12275515 File: 54 KB, 640x773, 8q0nmsgkvm521.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12274626 ehem, eh, eh, EHEM, check check, testing, 1, 2, testing, testing, 1, 2, 3, test-- THE FALLACY OF COMPOSITION

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 23 17:17:26 2018 No.12275516 >>12274626 Tell him to read the Holy Koran?

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 23 17:18:48 2018 No.12275520 >>12275203 >>12275515 both of u nailed it. /thread

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 23 17:19:33 2018 No.12275527 Does anyone have a reading list for Aquinas?

Anonymous Sun Dec 23 17:26:24 2018 No.12275557

>>12275355
I'm saying that without approaching each on its own, conclusions formed based on Kant's metaphysics don't refute Aquinas's. Admittedly, though, I was referring more to the sections discussing the cosmological argument in particular.
I'll look more into his metaphysics as a whole and how they would counter the Aristotelian conception and discuss that.

>>	Motoko Sun Dec 23 18:07:36 2018 No.12275755 >>12275557 But they do though, Kant specifically explains how his metaphysics outweigh Thomas' and why they show why his arguments fall flat.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 23 18:11:32 2018 No.12275772 >>12274978 You won't fuck your daughter, anyway, nor your son. If anything is "cucked", nothing really is.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 23 18:14:28 2018 No.12275779 >>12275755 Frankly, essentialism is more compelling than Kant's Idealism. I get what Kant is saying but the thing-in-itself is only a problem for representational thought

Motoko Sun Dec 23 18:18:02 2018 No.12275792

>>12275779
I find essentialism indefensible, and it has been (in my opinion) ignored by modern philosophers for good reason. Saul Kripke makes an interesting case for scientific essentialism, but his arguments boil down to some semantic intuitions and I don't think he showed what he wanted to show.

Either way, you can't say it's just a problem for representational thought, when that is one of the core tenents of a strand of philosophy he's attacking. If that idea falls, all metaphysics resting on it fall. I think you highly underestimate Kant's power.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 23 18:19:41 2018 No.12275797 >>12274626 you don't

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 23 18:52:51 2018 No.12275948 >>12274626 Why do you need to refute something that has no basis in reality, reason or logic?

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 23 18:55:49 2018 No.12275959 >>12274626 Mortimer Adler worshipped him, stole his arguments, and debated positivists during the Hutchins years debates well-attended Adler always won

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 23 18:58:33 2018 No.12275974 >>12275792 >I find essentialism indefensible why? >>12275948 >guy writes a 3,000 page tome filled with aristotelian arguments honed to a molecular edge just so some goober on 4chan can say it has no basis in reality shut up lol

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 23 19:34:32 2018 No.12276202 >>12275772 >t. cuck

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 23 19:40:28 2018 No.12276233 >>12275948 seconding this post. religitards trying to do logic are like deaf people trying to sing

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 23 19:43:01 2018 No.12276251 >>12275948 Are you the one who commented on the "Aquinas Debunked" video by pseud intellectual Rationality Rules to one of the top replies?

Anonymous Sun Dec 23 19:49:10 2018 No.12276285

>>12276251
yikes just checked that vid out and the comments are a cringefest of theists strawmanning and throwing tantrums

it's funny because you think all of the "orange man bad" comments on trump tweets are embarrassing but you guys do the exact same thing when your sacred cows get wholly debunked

Anonymous Sun Dec 23 19:50:17 2018 No.12276296

>>12274626
One does not refute Aquinas, because he is right. About his proof of God, at least.

If you are in this thread recommending "facts and logic" or whatever, you sound like this to me: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3yKxvW9yNA

>>12275256
Good post. Kant already did what the pseuds itt are doing. Just dismissing the causes of metaphysics altogether because they aren't knowable. That is itself not an argument.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 23 19:52:06 2018 No.12276307 File: 52 KB, 766x428, atheism_HUZZAH!.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12275948 >t

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 23 19:52:38 2018 No.12276309 >>12276285 Kinda fitting seeing as the video is a cringefest of an atheist strawmanning.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 23 19:52:52 2018 No.12276311 >>12276285 >yikes just checked that vid out and the comments are a cringefest of theists strawmanning and throwing tantrums Rationality Rules took Kreeft's argument and claimed that he debunked Aquinas because their arguments were similar.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 23 19:53:36 2018 No.12276317 >>12276296 >>12276307 >guy makes a 910 second video filled with aristoltelian counter-arguments honed to a molecular edge just so some goober on 4chan can dismiss it without even saying why it's bad ~reddit space~ shut up lol

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 23 20:40:01 2018 No.12276524 >>12274626 Just ask "what caused God?" i admit that i haven't read his works, but it makes sense

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 23 20:41:06 2018 No.12276531 >>12276524 retard

Anonymous Sun Dec 23 21:09:41 2018 No.12276672

>>12274626
It has been suspected for some time and indeed only recently (early twentieth century) confirmed that Thomas Aquinas, despite the immensity of the project he set forth for himself and the obstacles that stood in the way of his reasoning, was a faggot.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 23 21:59:54 2018 No.12276951 >>12276524 >That is God

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 23 22:45:08 2018 No.12277179 File: 430 KB, 2776x1388, IMG_4420.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12274626 OH NO NO NO NO NO

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 23 22:46:18 2018 No.12277189 >>12277179 >when your new faith is a costume >when you would denigrate your faith is anti-human memes >when you would be caught up in petty social signaling as a spiritually enlightened person wow really makes you think!!!

Anonymous Sun Dec 23 22:48:03 2018 No.12277203

>>12277179
guenonfag is the best slightly schizo gimmickposter on this board i swear to god

>recently call guenonfag a faggot for some random things
>he replies WHAT ARE YOU, SOME KIND OF AQUINAS NIGGER? I BET YOU LOVE AQUINAS DUDE! LMAO! AQUINAS GOT OWNED!
>"what"
>three days later
>he's making elaborate FUCK AQUINAS memes

he just cycles through shit in his mind, it's like a new saga every month

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 23 22:50:05 2018 No.12277214 >>12277203 the meme is old, like a year old. There are multiple guenon posters too, all of them are retarded and hyper sensitive

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 23 22:50:13 2018 No.12277215 >>12277203 that meme is at least a few months old, ive seen it before

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 23 22:51:48 2018 No.12277225 >>12277215 >>12277214 fuck, maybe i'm the schizo then.. he is phoneposting with guenonfag's usual phone filenames, so this one is at least the one i'm thinking of, the one who used to make all the unhinged trad threads and spaz out in them.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 23 22:53:08 2018 No.12277232 >>12277225 based on the filename i would say that is an image he moved from his phone to his pc. so he is posting from a computer

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 23 22:57:39 2018 No.12277255 >>12277179 is that actually how aquinas died

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 23 23:04:07 2018 No.12277294 >>12274626 Very, very, very easily.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 23 23:37:24 2018 No.12277454 >>12277179 kek

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 23 23:42:56 2018 No.12277480 >>12277255 yes

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 24 08:03:47 2018 No.12279232 >>12275792 >you underestimate kants power Sounds like a dbz charachter

Anonymous Mon Dec 24 08:13:11 2018 No.12279266

How is infused moral virtue different to habitual theological very in cause when both are acts of Grace? Also why didn't God make eight gifts of the spirit if he wanted them to line up with the four cardinal virtues? Seems a bit weird He picked seven and not a number that fits with Plato if He meant Augustine or Aquinas to carry on from Plato.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 24 08:14:42 2018 No.12279271 >>12279266 >very in cause *Virtue in cause

Anonymous Mon Dec 24 10:28:43 2018 No.12279683

>>12277179
Was enjoying this until the mention of "Aryan". Is that what this is to you? You're just an ignoble from /pol/ who sees Indian culture as an escape from Jewish ones, and you think your ancestry actually descends back to these cultures? If that's the case, please leave. Indians have been through enough over the past 1200 years, we absolutely do not need a new population of lost, disenfranchised Westerners to try and pillage our cultures from us after they had already done so of our lands. If I've mischaracterized you, and the mention of "Aryan" was simplu part of the meme, then my mistake. But it's really irritating being Indian on the internet these days, seeing as we're either being mocked beyond humanity or seeing our own heritage taken from us.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 24 11:37:28 2018 No.12279934 >>12279266 Seven is a holy number which signifies perfection in Christianity Like in the book of Revelation, theres seven trumpets, seven scrolls, seven angels, seven churches the author is writing to, etc

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 24 11:41:05 2018 No.12279952 >>12275772 haha what if ur a cuck unless your god

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 24 11:42:35 2018 No.12279963 >>12275515 the fallacy of composition always triggers me, it has to be one of the most brainlet excuses out there, like the only shit you believe is in numbers

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 24 11:44:39 2018 No.12279969 >>12276296 that video is painful to watch

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 24 11:45:44 2018 No.12279971 >>12276317 he literally dismiss it because "its retarded lmao so funny xd"

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 24 11:47:23 2018 No.12279976 >>12279683 fix bangladesh holy fuck it's painful to see india these days, do something you bum

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 24 11:52:56 2018 No.12280002 >>12279683 Ey bb u wan sum dik?

Anonymous Mon Dec 24 12:07:53 2018 No.12280062

>>12279683
Simply noting that the Vedas contain Aryan wisdom does not itself carry negative connotations, and the image does not imply nonsense such as that the Aryans (which was term used by multiple ethnic groups including Ancient Iranians as well as the Vedic Indians) were a bunch of pale Nordics. There is a middle group of appreciating the Aryan Vedics as a very wise people because of their literature between the mistake of thinking Indian culture comes from ancient Europeans and the second mistake of denying the Aryan migration and subsequent impact on Indian culture. Only on /pol/ will retards think the Aryans were Germanics invading India, on a board like /lit/ most people are generally aware that the Aryans were distant cousins of Euros and not Euros themselves. Swami Chinmayananda in his introduction to his commentary on the Ashtavakra Gita refers to non-dualism as the "royal secret of the Aryans". I'm guessing the Jewish mention is just part of the trolling, snarky attitude of the meme, and most chad vs virgin memes generally, but even if we take it seriously for a moment; it's true that Christianity and subsequently western thought is heavily rooted in Judaism and that non-western cultures who offer alternative conceptual frameworks for considering things can at times be seen (and rightfully so) to disillusioned westerners like an oasis in a desert.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 24 12:16:59 2018 No.12280098 >>12277179 Renouncing possessions and urges is blue pilled, both Buddha and Christ agreed on this

Anonymous Mon Dec 24 12:25:29 2018 No.12280146

>>12280098
>Renouncing possessions and urges is blue pilled, both Buddha and Christ agreed on this

wtf are you talking about? Buddha would not let people join the Sangha unless they renounced all their possessions and took up the robe and begging bowl. Jesus is also recorded as telling people more or less the same thing in Luke.

>As they were proceeding on their journey someone said to him, "I will follow you wherever you go."
>Jesus answered him, "Foxes have dens and birds of the sky have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to rest his head."
>And to another he said, "Follow me." But he replied, "[Lord,] let me go first and bury my father."
>But he answered him, "Let the dead bury their dead. But you, go and proclaim the kingdom of God."
>And another said, "I will follow you, Lord, but first let me say farewell to my family at home."
>[To him] Jesus said, "No one who sets a hand to the plow and looks to what was left behind is fit for the kingdom of God."

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 24 12:27:12 2018 No.12280152 >>12280146 Buddha's whole thing was realizing how retarded fasting was, Christ also got his hair shampooed which lead to a funny argument.

Anonymous Mon Dec 24 12:42:34 2018 No.12280221

>>12280152
>Buddha's whole thing was realizing how retarded fasting was

Yes, but the "middle path" he advocated between gluttony and extreme fasting would itself still seem like serious asceticism by most modern people. People were not allowed possessions other than the most basic stuff like bowl, robe and staff, the Sangha would continuously remain on the move except when the weather did not permit so as to not develop attachment to any one location; people were only allowed to eat one small meal a day obtained through begging, basically the least amount of food needed to keep the body going. You should stop making claims about something you clearly know so little about.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 24 17:57:02 2018 No.12281557 >>12274626 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUScILYNykc he debunks it pretty well

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 24 18:28:53 2018 No.12281675 >>12274626 You literally fucking can't

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 24 18:31:48 2018 No.12281681 File: 44 KB, 780x512, muh teapot.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12274626 Checkmate Thomists.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 24 18:32:25 2018 No.12281685 >>12274626 why would you engage with a christcuck in the first place?

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 24 18:34:04 2018 No.12281693 >>12277189 Funny how it's only fans of these various semi-fringe eastern philosophies who are actually expected to be exceedingly virtuous, what does that say about the attitudes of the questioner towards Christianity lol

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 24 18:43:58 2018 No.12281738 cosmological argument fails because it depends on the ontological argument to bridge the gap from unmoved mover to god.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 24 19:02:57 2018 No.12281826 >>12275355 Much like Hegel, you're a fake Kantian. Fucking leave, you insufferable namefaggot.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 24 19:04:54 2018 No.12281839 >>12281826 why do Kantians have extraordinarly strong, violent reactions to criticism? more than any other group of philosofags they will explode into vindictive tirades if you say anything vaguely disparaging of Kant.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 24 19:12:40 2018 No.12281874 Aquinas can be refuted with four letters: tl;dr Christcucks btfo

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 25 01:58:50 2018 No.12283351 >>12281557 >posting this >on Christmas shame. I really don't like this Kreeft fellow. His books on surface observation seem to be pro-Thomist, something an enthusiastic but perhaps undereducated Catholic would buy. Very scummy.

Anonymous Tue Dec 25 02:35:09 2018 No.12283444
File: 1.54 MB, 1306x1947, 64070025.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>12274626

A counter-argument to Aquinas is that his basic assumption (shared with Aristotle) is that a human mind can know a thing as the thing would be apart from any human mind.

Refer to Aristotle's conception of the human mind as the form of forms, and the analogy of the wax seal. Aristotle and Aquinas privilege the known object's contribution to knowledge, while Kant privileges the knowing subject's contribution to knowledge - after all, we are primarily knowers, fundamentally minds. "There is nothing more certain than consciousness," Kant starts with.

>>12274656
>>12275256
>>12275355
>>12275557
>>12275755
>>12275779
>>12275792
>>12276296

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 25 02:38:34 2018 No.12283453 >>12281839 Becuase Kant is so hyped up by kantians as to be some kind of godlike figure. t. Kantian

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 25 04:16:19 2018 No.12283642 >>12276524 Nothing caused God, he is eternal you dumbass

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 25 04:19:22 2018 No.12283646 >>12283642 If something is eternal, is it changing?

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 25 04:20:14 2018 No.12283649 >>12283642 >everything requires a cause except for this one thing that for some reason doesn't

Anonymous Tue Dec 25 04:22:11 2018 No.12283655

>>12283649
That's not the theist argument
1: Every thing that begins to exist has a cause
2: The universe began to exist
3: Therefor the universe has a cause
4: But there can't be an infinite amount of causes, because what started the casual chain then?
5: Therefor there exists an uncaused cause.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 25 04:27:10 2018 No.12283666 >>12283646 No it isn't >>12283649 >eternal God who is his only cause needs a an external cause key word: eternal

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 25 04:27:43 2018 No.12283667 >>12283655 This is a cosmological argument, not an ontological one. Therefore it falls to pieces in the face of modern cosmology. The "cause" you are looking for is the Big Bang, which answers this line of inquiry perfectly.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 25 04:32:40 2018 No.12283682 File: 307 KB, 450x559, st-gregory-palamas-4.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Stop reading Aquinas

Anonymous Tue Dec 25 04:32:59 2018 No.12283683

>>12283667
People fail to realise what eternity means. They think eternity means he is just going on living like some man in a story who obtained immortality, while in fact God's entire existence is an indivisible moment that encompasses everything that has ever been and that will ever be and he himself is his only cause. There was no time when God was not there and there is no time when he won't be there. Nor was there a time when God did not put his will to work. In fact you can't even call it time, since time as a concept implies change, while God does not change in any way. He is that he is. Saying that he requires a cause outside of himself is one of the biggest blasphemies I've heard.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 25 04:35:19 2018 No.12283692 >>12283683 Saint Augustine, please pray for me man

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 25 04:37:45 2018 No.12283696 >>12283667 So you say that the big bang was an uncaused cause? Can you site a single paper in cosmology that claims that the big bang was uncaused?

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 25 04:41:17 2018 No.12283706 >>12283666 If something does something, does it change then?

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 25 04:43:31 2018 No.12283709 >>12283706 It can't change if it's eternal, that's the point.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 25 04:45:20 2018 No.12283712 >>12283709 So god can't do anything, or can god do things without changing? I'm really confused and you seem wise.

Anonymous Tue Dec 25 04:58:40 2018 No.12283738

>>12283712
The whole deal with basically all non-heretical Christian doctrines is that God is immutable and eternal. God doesn't do anything in the sense that you or I do it. We do things in time, God doesn't, because he precedes times (he must precede them because he made them, and he made them because he made everything) and exists beyond the effects of time (if he lived in time he would not be eternal because he would change). A change implies some sort of chain of succession, and since God lives transcending times he lives free of change. There can't be a change in timelessness. So he can do anything, but it doesn't mean he changes since his will is constant and it simply can't change because it is free of time as we know it. It simply is.

>26 They shall perish, but thou shalt endure: yea, all of them shall wax old like a garment; as a vesture shalt thou change them, and they shall be changed:
>27 But thou art the same, and thy years shall have no end.
Psalm 102

Read Augustine like this guy says >>12283692

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 25 05:02:30 2018 No.12283742 >>12283738 Thanks for the intresting answer, I'll look into Agustine, and also, merry christmas.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 25 06:07:37 2018 No.12283845 >>12283742 T-thanks, to you too!

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 25 08:04:45 2018 No.12284147 >>12283649 I think the argument proves that there must have been an uncaused causer. This argument on its own doesnt set out to prove the Christian God. At least thats my understanding of it.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 25 11:26:09 2018 No.12284668 >>12275219 Now this is a reddit post if I’ve ever seen one.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 25 11:42:20 2018 No.12284732 File: 154 KB, 743x729, 1544686226310.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12276524

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 25 12:31:03 2018 No.12284885 This is now the 111th post

Anonymous Tue Dec 25 12:42:15 2018 No.12284933
File: 16 KB, 200x250, 16355099712_9e45478262.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>12283683
>>12283738

The ~500 AD Hindu philosopher Gauḍapāda takes those same starting premises and argues they logically lead to Advaita Vedanta. In my opinion when you fully go down the rabbit hole of the implications of divine simplicity and immutability that you mention in these posts it actually refutes the Christian understanding of God and leads to a more Vedantic or Sufi understanding of a non-dual monad-like God. If you accept that God is immutable then it leads to God being the only thing that exists because creation and differentiation violates that immutability.

>n fact you can't even call it time, since time as a concept implies change, while God does not change in any way. He is that he is. Saying that he requires a cause outside of himself is one of the biggest blasphemies I've heard.
Exactly, but a God "That does not change in any way" is incompatible with the God of the old testament, and of a Jesus, and with the notion of creating the universe. A God who abides in His own divine being without change could not create the universe, earth or humankind, because that would involve God doing something which He had not before that moment of creation. At the moment of creation He is not the exact same immutable God as before creation, hence immutability is incompatible with creation in a real sense.

Nothing ever changes it's own immutable nature, an immutable and eternal God cannot become temporary and mortal because that would be a contradiction in terms, nor can it interrupt its own immutability to create, creation ex-nihilio is nonsense and Genesis mentions creation from the primordial waters anyways and not out of void; hence when God is the only thing that exists before creation the only source for the temporary to be created from would be God itself which is illogical because that would involve the eternal becoming temporary. In addition to all these points Gauḍapāda notes that it's not a good position to say that God desired to create the world, its beings and be worshiped because an infinite immutable God existing before the universe who transcends all casual relations should not have desires, how could God even have desires for something else when God alone exists before creation?

https://www.iep.utm.edu/gau%E1%B8%8Dapad/

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 25 13:07:28 2018 No.12285030 >>12274626 You don't. The (((enlightment))) could only start when pseuds stopped trying to refute him and started acting as If he was already refuted.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 25 13:13:05 2018 No.12285049 >>12284933 Great information, anonpai.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 25 13:26:10 2018 No.12285117 >>12274626 by passing him over in silence

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 25 18:37:59 2018 No.12286520 >>12274626 By not buying into his outdated metaphysics and not committing the fallacy of composition.

Anonymous Tue Dec 25 18:41:16 2018 No.12286538

>>12284933

Advaita is in an inferior place in the dialectic vs Christianity- heck, even relative to Aristotle, who settled it decisively when he crushed Parmenidean monism. Where advaita affirms the One at the expense of the many, the Christian and Jewish scriptures affirm creation- the One *and* the Many, and the goodness of the Many.

Creation and differentiation doesn't violate immutability, since creation is not a change in God, but in his creatures. He doesn't 'do' by committing parts of himself which he wasn't before; rather, he creates ex nihilo, without reliance on parts or substrates or any such thing. He is the cause of things in that their actuality derives from him at every moment where they are, not that he is 'before' them in a merely temporal sense.

Indeed God is the source of things, but he is not their material cause- things are not made out of him. Rather, they are made to approach his infinite being in a limited way. God is in other words not a potency to be given form, but a final and efficient cause approached and reflected in a finite way. This is perfectly obvious when we consider the Aristotelian category which mediates between pure being and nothingness, that is, potency, which just is a finite ordering-towards being. Because potency exists only relative to act, it cannot ultimately be a causal partner with act- it must emerge from pure act ex nihilo.

God has desire for something else, not through a lack in himself, but precisely in the love of himself. If he is the infinite act which can be approached by creatures in infinitely many ways or none, his full love of himself neither requires creatures nor does it mean that God cannot love and desire them. Thus God's eternal happiness does not constrain him to contemplating only himself, but through himself, being free to create any and all possible worlds of creatures.

Not only does Christianity affirm God and the world, it also bridges the infinite distance between God and his creatures which the fact of creation entails. It is despair at this gap which leads to dysfunctional philosophies like Advaita- the false unity which requires the negation of all creation is only a twisted way of attempting to overcome the gulf between creature and creator. But Christianity says that God did reconcile what is finite and mortal to his eternity- not by compromising his own eternal nature, but by taking up finite human nature into his own internal Trinitarian dynamic. As one person with two natures, Christ is not a mere avatar, which can be put on and taken off (which would only reaffirm the incompatibility of the divine and human natures). Rather, he is the permanent union of the creaturel and divine, through whom the creature can touch God himself, and from whom the creature can be drawn out of its own finitude, into eternal life.

>>	Motoko Tue Dec 25 19:08:28 2018 No.12286641 >>12281826 What? I think you're confused, depending on the interpretation Hegel is either super-Kantian or anti-Kantian. I prefer the post-Kantian interpretation that sees Hegel as a successor and not as an enemy of the Kantian system. Retarded homo.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 25 19:22:00 2018 No.12286683 >>12279963 >the fallacy of composition always triggers me, it has to be one of the most brainlet excuses out there >logic >excuse LMFAO

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 25 19:26:40 2018 No.12286702 File: 12 KB, 480x360, Van Til.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12283682 Stop reading Aquinas but in presuppositional Dutch

Anonymous Tue Dec 25 20:09:42 2018 No.12286886

Going along with what others have said, the "presuppositional" mode of thought dominated Thomas' thinking much like other thinkers in the Greek and Roman times.

By "presuppositional" I mean that he will presuppose an opinion/proposition like "God exists -- here are some ways someone could argue his existence, etc.," and proceed in a deductive manner from there.

Much of the content of the Summa Theologica are inferences that follow basic but sometimes not-so-obvious presuppositions made at the beginning of his inquiry. Often I like to say that the great value of Thomas was not in his "correctness" per se, for this "correctness" is ostensibly compromised at the point of presupposition -- but rather, the value is in the way he was able to think in such a clear, architectonic manner. Like Aristotle, he made a good attempt at "tying it all together" in a self-consistent and axiomatic manner.

So the thoughts of Aquinas are not his downfall necessarily, as a lot of his arguments make sense in the context of his style of thinking. But that context is what should be criticized, as many have indicated, because it includes refutable assumptions that play a necessary role in his conclusions.

On another note, yes, his cosmogony is in line with Aristotle's "prime mover" idea. But to be clear, the "prime mover" for Aristotle did not actually take the form of an argument. It was an opinion that stood necessarily following from his other philosophy, so it can be confusing. The reason this is important is because people often will try to refute the so-called "ontological argument" when really it was just a proposed way to prove the truth of an opinion. An actual "ontological argument" would take a deeper form than its proposed structure in Aquinas.

Anonymous Tue Dec 25 22:31:23 2018 No.12287410
File: 168 KB, 400x235, vedas.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>12286538
>Advaita is in an inferior place in the dialectic vs Christianity- heck, even relative to Aristotle, who settled it decisively when he crushed Parmenidean monism.
The opposite is actually true, Christian thinkers have almost no history of or experience with writing critiques of non-dualism aside from a faint shadow of it in Neoplatonism (which they were more influenced by than opposed to) while Vedanta has literally a multi-thousand year history of people writing elaborate critiques of every sort of argument for a separate uncaused creator God. Aristotle's thoughts on Parmenides are not applicable to Advaita which is a completely different beast that's exponentially more complex and subtle than basic Parmenidean monism, I shouldn't even have to say this. If you think Advaita is equivalent to Parmenides go read about it first before replying to this post so you don't make any basic mistakes. Entry-level criticisms like the principle of non-contradiction are not applicable because of things like the doctrines of Maya, non-origination and the two truths; which offer a uniformly consistent explanation for how God at once is one way and appears to be another and all the other ostensible paradoxes people associate with Advaita or monism.

>Where Advaita affirms the One at the expense of the many, the Christian and Jewish scriptures affirm creation- the One *and* the Many, and the goodness of the Many.
It's not at the expense of the many, the many is not bad but is just subsumed into the One, it affirms the goodness of both (everything) because what was thought to be the many is in reality really just the One and the good etc so there is only That remaining.

>Creation and differentiation doesn't violate immutability, since creation is not a change in God, but in his creatures.
This is nonsensical, before the first creation there are none of His creatures, only God. You are trying to say "well it's not violating immutability because the change occurs in something which is not God, Well before the FIRST appearance of those creatures the change cannot come from them because they didn't exist yet. After they are created change could hypothetically occur in them but the very first creation of them itself can only be caused by that which exists before them (God), but this violates immutability because before they are created when only God exists there exists none who can act to cause their creation except God; this act of FIRST creation itself by God violates immutability.

>He doesn't 'do' by committing parts of himself which he wasn't before; rather,
Okay, so here you admit that it's unfeasible that eternal parts of Himself are made into the non-eternal, I agree

Anonymous Tue Dec 25 22:32:35 2018 No.12287415
File: 94 KB, 339x470, anonymous-indian-mughal-(18)-two-ladies-visiting-an-ascetic.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>12286538

>he creates ex nihilo, without reliance on parts or substrates or any such thing. He is the cause of things in that their actuality derives from him at every moment where they are, not that he is 'before' them in a merely temporal sense.
Creation ex nihilo is equally unfeasible under either frame of reference you mention, it's a matter of every day experience that there isn't anything which is created from nothing. As Gaudapada writes 'the son of barren women is born neither through Maya (illusion) nor in reality. We have no reason at all to think it happens unless you are turning to it to support Christian theology. I don't place much stock in science but I'll note in passing without relying on this point that science agrees here too.

If something is hypothetically being created ex-nihilio, it's still dependent on the creator, proposing that it's ex-nihilio doesn't create a magic loop-hole that explains the appearance of the universe while absolving God of actionhood in creating it. Before the first creation of anything there exists no possible non-God which God could act upon to create, in the act of creating without relying on any previous material or substratum, the product of that creation is itself inevitably the product of the creator. Even under your view of God being their source of actuality at every moment and not just a 'one-time' thing, before the first creation when God alone exists, until the product of the first creation is completed there is only God alone; any process of first creation until finished is necessarily inseparable from God. This hypothetical process of first creation which is inseparable from God violates immutability because in this process or its first steps which are inseparable from God (until the first non-God is created) marks a change in God from before creation and after first creation.

You claim that God produces this change without acting or changing, but without any plausible explanation for how or why it would occur absent the casual relation which implicates God as being involved. Even under the implausible (and yet to be supported with logic) hypothesis of God creating without acting the very decision to initiate that process itself is a change which breaks immutability. If you think God is conscious, than the initiation of the first creation (or of the birth of Jesus, or the covenants etc) could not be a conscious decision because conscious decisions and deliberation by God themselves break immutability. Also, Aquinas and Christianity writ large also agree with the starting premise of God being infinite (as does Advaita) and this causes further contradiction because the definition of infinite is literally 'without limits' and God cannot create something which exists as other than Himself (even if its existence and actuality depends on Him at every moment) without necessarily being delimited by that thing and hence not infinite.

Anonymous Tue Dec 25 22:34:41 2018 No.12287427
File: 25 KB, 214x256, krsna.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>12286538

The very possibility of B existing as other than A renders the infinitude of A impossible because B escapes it. An infinite God is mutually incompatible with creation existing as not-God even if bathed in and supported by God's energies etc. You (and Aquinas et al) are trying to reconcile the mutually incompatible by saying an infinite, immutable God can create ex nihilio AND God's eternal, immutable nature is not somehow modified into the temporary AND God creates this radical change without acting as though there was no casual relation. The whole thing is illogical on the face of it and collapses under its own contradictions.

>Indeed God is the source of things, but he is not their material cause- things are not made out of him. Rather, they are made to approach his infinite being in a limited way. God is in other words not a potency to be given form, but a final and efficient cause approached and reflected in a finite way.
This explanation does nothing to resolve the paradoxes pointed out above, you don't explain how or why they are made to approach his infinite being without one of the aforementioned contradictions coming into play.

>This is perfectly obvious when we consider the Aristotelian category which mediates between pure being and nothingness, that is, potency, which just is a finite ordering-towards being. Because potency exists only relative to act, it cannot ultimately be a causal partner with act- it must emerge from pure act ex nihilo.
Again, this resolves none of the contradictions inherent in your model where God is the first uncaused cause as opposed to co-existing eternally in time alongside God's effect/creation (also implausible btw). You say it must emerge from pure act but action is defined by, and is indeed impossible without the sort of change that compromises immutability.

>God has desire for something else, not through a lack in himself, but precisely in the love of himself.
Desire does not arise if there is no lack of the thing that is desired, desire cannot exist without the absence of the thing desired. It's a contradiction to say that God has desire but does not lack anything Himself. In order to desire a possession, act or outcome God would first have to first lack it.

>But Christianity says that God did reconcile what is finite and mortal to his eternity- not by compromising his own eternal nature, but by taking up finite human nature into his own internal Trinitarian dynamic.
Which can't exist in the first place as something separate to be reconciled to God (in your doctrine) without raising inexcusable contradictions with the starting premise of an infinite and immutable God.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 25 22:53:07 2018 No.12287494 @12287410 @12287415 @12287427 stop shitting up every thread with your retarded autism fucking discord fags. kys

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 25 23:19:03 2018 No.12287596 >>12287494 If you can't handle people posting why they disagree with your views, than don't post about them in the first place

Anonymous Tue Dec 25 23:42:31 2018 No.12287691

>>12286886
This was very interesting, thanks anon.

>>12287410
This was also interesting but no offence anon you seem very biased. You have a tendency to say 'my tradition is obviously a thousand times more complex and correct and if you can't see that then you know nothing'. Maybe you are right, but that isn't a great way to have an argument. You come across very combative, no offence.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 25 23:48:33 2018 No.12287718 >>12274656 This. You can't.

Anonymous Tue Dec 25 23:58:11 2018 No.12287754

>>12287410

Advaita is certainly complex, but the fundamental insight goes no deeper than Parmenides, who intuited that being is one, and that therefore all that is not one is non-being, and illusory. Maya, 'two truths' etc. is a cope born of the weakness of your basic categories in affirming both transcendent and created reality- they are rearguard actions designed to solve a problem (how is there even the appearance of the many, if there is only the one?) which doesn't arise if there is the means available to affirm both the contingent world as contingent (but real), and the non-contingent as the reality from which all others derive.

>the acts of God violates immutability

Only if you have some unsubtle idea of God acting the way we do- by mobilising parts. If God creates ex nihilo- that is, through being the ultimate source and end of his creatures, without the cooperation of any extrinsic principle, then there is no problem.

I never said that God creates without acting. I said that he creates contingent things without himself changing. He acts (in that he has effects which depend upon him), without changing. The contingent decision to create does not change God's being, since the what is eternal in the decision (the divine nature) remains constant, and what is not eternal (the effect), is extrinsic to God. His 'action' is his very act of being; whereas in creatures of limited power, there is some mixture of potency in such an act, God's action, being unlimited, is simply his unqualified being. He doesn't act as a cause in the sense of being a temporally prior state from which the cause necessarily follows; he is rather the actuality from which the effect, in its contingency, derives.

Because his causation is like this, his causal power is active in the same way at every time. There is no temporal 'before' the first moment (hence no need to go from a T<0 to T=0); it is only true that at the first moment, things are *already* in dependence on God. There really is no contradiction in God being the thing which causes movement in others, without being himself moved.

God being conscious and deliberative also doesn't require violating immutability. God doesn't know things by forming changing representations in his mind (hence doesn't need to make decisions by shifting around his internal mental states), but by being their total cause, such that every reality derives from him, and is thus already reflected in his being. His knowledge isn't mediated by impressions, but is superior, in that it is immediate: he knows things from the 'inside,' as the reality from which they derive. Similarly, the reasons and rationales inherent in created things also reflect his pre-existent reality, so that it is proper to say that their reason originates from his, even though for God reason is not a process of going from point A to point B in a temporal sequence.

Anonymous Tue Dec 25 23:59:04 2018 No.12287759

>>12287691
>Maybe you are right, but that isn't a great way to have an argument. You come across very combative, no offence.
Maybe so, but I refrained from insulting anyone or their favored views beyond simply pointing out why I believe it's contradictory, which is a lot more than you can say for most people here. I didn't say anyone or anything was dumb, gay or retarded. The vast majority of people on /lit/ react with intense hostility whenever you post a critique of something they are emotionally invested in anyways. You can excuse me for not sugar-coating that I think it's contradictory when the default response is for people to pepper their responses full of ad-hominem insults when they even bother posting detailed replies at all instead of just insults.

Anonymous Wed Dec 26 00:25:32 2018 No.12287834

>>12287427

>unlimited being is incompatible with limited being

And here we find the characteristic Advaita lack of imagination.

God's existence and the existence of things are not said univocally. Existence in creatures is always approximated existence, whereas God's existence is unqualified. Hence the perfect and unlimited existence of God is not in competition with his creatures. The qualification of creatures does not somehow impose limits or qualification upon God's own being. Quite the reverse! Qualification is only possible through the unqualified, as approximations are only possible through an end that they approximate, which is not itself approximate. The qualified being of creatures underlines God's infinity, rather than detracts from it.

God is infinite in the sense that his being is *unqualified,* not that he has an infinite quantity of something, or that he fills an infinite space leaving no space for anything else. Potency renders qualified being possible, since it is neither non-being nor absolute being, but a finite ordering-towards being, and supplied the principle by which the creature is distinguished from the Creator. The East, lacking potency as an ontological category, catastrophically fails to come to grips with both creation and the Creator.

>desire does not exist without the lack of the thing desired

God does not will to create through lack, but through affirming his own complete being as infinitely approachable. If one defines desire as the ordering-toward that which one does not have, then I am happy to concede that God does not 'desire' in this sense. But he does 'desire' in another sense, that is, he wills things other than himself, precisely through willing himself as their cause. Because the existence of finite things is not in competition with his own, to will them is not to lack anything in himself, but rather simply one more mode of enjoying his own unqualified being. This is why Christians affirm love of others as a positive thing, rather than indicative of weakness. The Eastern concept of 'loving' others because really there is no other, is a poor bastardisation of this love.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 26 00:50:51 2018 No.12287901 Our current understanding of quantum mechanics suggests that thinga don't need a cause to happen.

Anonymous Wed Dec 26 00:50:55 2018 No.12287902
File: 246 KB, 700x664, medieval-cognitive-science.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>12287834

>God's existence and the existence of things are not said univocally. Existence in creatures is always approximated existence, whereas God's existence is unqualified. Hence the perfect and unlimited existence of God is not in competition with his creatures.

Hence we can have no idea what divine existence is, or is like, because it would be utterly alien to any earthly type of existence. Hence we have no idea whether it is or is not, whether a god is an actuality or a mental illusion.

>The qualification of creatures does not somehow impose limits or qualification upon God's own being

The unlimited is the indeterminate, the unspecified, the inconceivable, the indeterminate. There is no positive content there to think about - it teaches us nothing. Apophasis.

> Qualification is only possible through the unqualified, as approximations are only possible through an end that they approximate, which is not itself approximate. The qualified being of creatures underlines God's infinity, rather than detracts from it.

Yet human life is surrounded by qualification, characterized by limitation. You claim that this assumes unqualification as a precondition, but that is an inference (a speculative, doubtable one) that you draw from the given, the undeniable, the qualified nature of the experienced world. Why not instead argue that the concept of "unqualified" is only possible through the qualified, as its negation? As "infinite" is derived from "finite," and "unlimited" is derived from "limited" - which is much more plausible, since finite, limited beings surround us everywhere, but infinite and unlimited beings are nowhere to be found in the universe, and can only be found in imaginary, abstract speculation.

The rest of your post seems to assume principles that I'm calling into question above.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 26 01:18:57 2018 No.12287983 Atheist = perpetually aggrieved perennial minority angry chip on shoulder always looking for a fight. Basically NIGGERS !

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 26 02:00:04 2018 No.12288093 >>12287983 I HATE NIGGERS SO NOW I HATE ATHIESTS

Anonymous Wed Dec 26 02:02:45 2018 No.12288099

>>12284933
Creation is not a change or even a real relation in God, but in the creature. Aquinas also clearly argues that the trinitarian nature of God is following and compatible with his unity (http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1028.htm))
>>12287410
You're using specifically temporal language here. God has no specific place in the timeline, arguments depending on phrasing God as existing before Creation are meaningless ("creation of them itself can only be caused by that which exists before them (God)").
To properly order and phrase it, God's existence by its nature chooses to create all of Creation, in time from outside of time. It manifests creations in His own image in it, and incarnates the filial person of the trinity in that creation in a way that respects, rather than refutes, the absolute simplicity and immutability of the divine.
>>12287415
>>12287427
Creation ex nihilo works not as a specific act, as your argument rests on, but because the divine is by nature creative, and similarly allows His creations to share in His own acts of being and creation, though to lesser, non-divine, degree. "As Gaudapada writes 'the son of barren women is born neither through Maya (illusion) nor in reality" is not remotely helpful to your argument, either- the creation derives not from the barren, but from Existence itself.
>>12287754
Exactly
>>12287759
>Christian thinkers have almost no history of or experience with writing critiques of non-dualism aside from a faint shadow of it in Neoplatonism (which they were more influenced by than opposed to) while Vedanta has literally a multi-thousand year history of people writing elaborate critiques of every sort of argument for a separate uncaused creator God. Aristotle's thoughts on Parmenides are not applicable to Advaita which is a completely different beast that's exponentially more complex and subtle than basic Parmenidean monism
As he said, you do have an unnecessarily smug approach to your argument here, and defending yourself by pointing out that you're better than the majority of posters doesn't do you any credit. That said, you do provide plenty of good argumentation as well, so such tone criticisms are irrelevant to the argument at hand.

>>12286886
Yeah, the cosmological argument (I assume you meant that, as Aquinas didn't use the ontological?) is a rather obvious footnote in Aristotelian metaphysics, establishing of said system of form and movement is the meat of the argument. But that kind of criticism of "propositional thinking" doesn't hold. All philosophers have reason to believe that physical laws are consistent or that perception is valid, but there is no widespread argument that any philosophies that accept those, regardless of arguments they use, are weaker or less valid.

Anonymous Wed Dec 26 02:04:22 2018 No.12288104

>>12287902
>Hence we can have no idea what divine existence is, or is like
Saying that we only see existence as a pale analogy to absolute existence doesn't imply that we can't understand things about it.
>The unlimited is the indeterminate, the unspecified, the inconceivable, the indeterminate. There is no positive content there to think about
Very different sense of infinite- I'd prefer the word transcendent, but that's just a difference of terminology. The transcendent deriving from truth or beauty, rather than unlimited merely being a negation of limits. There's a reason that the infinitude of God is less argued than, say, omnibenevolence, immutability, or transcendence of time.

Anonymous Wed Dec 26 02:24:09 2018 No.12288164
File: 31 KB, 330x251, giles_of_rome.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>12288104

And saying that we understand by "analogy" doesn't imply that we understand at all.

If God is utterly different from anything in nature, then how could any analogy based on natural being give us the slightest clue towards understanding God? It seems to me that Thomistic analogies only contain content from the natural universe, and attempt to indicate something that is non-natural - but this is impossible if such analogies can only use content derived from nature.

> The transcendent deriving from truth or beauty, rather than unlimited merely being a negation of limits.

How is "indeterminate" anything other than a merely empty formalism, parasitic upon the earthly experience of determinate beings? In the same way that "infinite" is parasitic upon "finite" (without adding any instructive content), for example.

We can try to dignify this game by terms such as "transcendent," but what is the *content* that we are actually thinking about, and how does this content indicate that there is some divine being separate from our speculative mental activity? "Truth" and "beauty" can have rigid meanings for populations of human animal minds, but if you're trying to argue for some transcendent divinity apart from such minds, then I think you have all of your arguing ahead of you.

Anonymous Wed Dec 26 02:35:04 2018 No.12288211

>>12287754
>but the fundamental insight goes no deeper than Parmenides, who intuited that being is one, and that therefore all that is not one is non-being, and illusory.
This is not the reasoning that Advaita uses, not would it agree with that conclusion, Parmenides is only tangentially related on a surface level in the broadest possible sense of having to do with a One. It's really quite different.

>Maya, 'two truths' etc. is a cope born of the weakness of your basic categories in affirming both transcendent and created reality - they are rearguard actions
The three things I mentioned are three separate concepts which all have their appropriate role in explaining Advaita, you don't saying anything specific that refutes them in any way and just made a unsubstantiated generalization about them (cope), without explaining what exactly makes them copes and how (for in order to be copes they would have to not satisfactorily fulfill the purpose for which they exist which you don't even attempt to prove). They are not rear-guards but are bound up with the very beginning of Vedanta and appear in the early Upanishads circa 900-800 BC before any of the pre-socratics. Also, Advaita is not affirming both realities, it is saying that there is only one reality, and that apparent reality is subsumed in the actual ultimate reality through the removal of ignorance.

>designed to solve a problem (how is there even the appearance of the many, if there is only the one?)
Which they do so elegantly and plausibly IMO, people are free to disagree with it as a matter of faith; but as a concept they are coherent and internally consistent

>which doesn't arise if there is the means available to affirm both the contingent world as contingent (but real), and the non-contingent as the reality from which all others derive.
It's true that this doesn't arise on that premise, but the emergence of the contingent from the non-contingent that you allege contradicts itself as explained, you'd have to show that the origination of the contingent is possible and not completely infeasible before you could propose it as a favorable alternative explanation.

Anonymous Wed Dec 26 02:36:06 2018 No.12288213

>>12287754

>the acts of God violates immutability
>If God creates ex nihilo- that is, through being the ultimate source and end of his creatures, without the cooperation of any extrinsic principle, then there is no problem.
Yes, there is a problem. Creating 'ex nihilo' without any extrinsic principle is still violating immutability. You can't obfuscate the issue of firstness away because God being the uncaused first cause of all including time and the universe is central to Christian theology. When God alone exists before the creation of time, the universe or anything else (And this necessarily has to be a stage, Christian theology does not say the effect viz. creation always existed alongside the cause and so it can only hypothetically work with God being the only thing which exists before the first creation) than the change that marks the distinction between God before creation and God alongside or after creation is a change that violates immutability, when God is the only thing that exists there is no locus this change could take place in or be caused by without violating immutability. I'm not saying that God is a circle and that creation is an action taking place inside a circle creating another object which ends up outside the circle, I'm saying before creation God would be literally everything, transcending any sort of distinction of time/space/matter/void (which don't even exist then and can't); there cannot be anything which occurs when God is everything because in order for that to occur (such as the act of creation) there is nowhere it could occur other than God because at that time before creation God is everything, this taking place in the everything that is God would compromise His immutability. Creation could not spontaneously arise on its own without any causal relation to God, it can only take place through some connection to the Everything which precedes it's emergence, however the very point where this creation or the causal process which creates it connects it to the Immutable (the connection whereby creation is caused by God) is a violation of it because until first creation has occurred this connection is taking place within and thereby violating the immutability of the Everything that is God before creation. There is no way for it to emerge without first compromising immutability.

Anonymous Wed Dec 26 02:37:07 2018 No.12288219

>>12287754

>I never said that God creates without acting. I said that he creates contingent things without himself changing. He acts (in that he has effects which depend upon him), without changing.
Christian theology posits God as the uncaused first cause who is not co-extensive with but existed before creation. The act of creation is not and cannot be eternal because eternal equally means without beginning as it does without end. The very fact of creation beginning at a certain point (which is inseparable from the doctrine of God existing before creation) means that creation is not and can never be eternal because it would have had to be without beginning which is impossible with the Christian understanding of God as uncaused first cause. It's impossible for God to create continent things without himself changing as you say, because the very first initiation of this process (which is required of any non-eternal act) marks a change itself. TLDR - God being the cause of and existing prior to creation establishes a non-eternity to creation because anything which has a beginning is non-eternal, the initiation or beginning of a non-eternal act is itself a change which compromises immutability; if God always created eternally without beginning than it might work but Christian theologians backed themselves into a hole unwittingly when they claimed God was the first uncaused cause of all while also being unchanging (the only way to reconcile this is to say that the creation is not actually real or not really taking place, e.g. Maya).

>The contingent decision to create does not change God's being, since the what is eternal in the decision (the divine nature) remains constant, and what is not eternal (the effect), is extrinsic to God.
Do you not understand that eternal also means without beginning? Decisions cannot be eternal, because any decision itself marks a distinction which has no place and cannot exist in immutable eternity. If God takes a decision by default it's not eternal. God existing before creation means nothing about creation can be eternal, not even the decision to initiate it. A beginningless decision is another contradiction in terms.

>His 'action' is his very act of being; whereas in creatures of limited power, there is some mixture of potency in such an act, God's action, being unlimited, is simply his unqualified being. He doesn't act as a cause in the sense of being a temporally prior state from which the cause necessarily follows; he is rather the actuality from which the effect, in its contingency, derives.
Sounds nice, but this does nothing to resolve any of the contradictions that I've pointed out. Whether you prefer to framer it temporally or otherwise, all the same objections remain just as valid.

Anonymous Wed Dec 26 02:38:16 2018 No.12288224

>>12287754

>Because his causation is like this, his causal power is active in the same way at every time. There is no temporal 'before' the first moment (hence no need to go from a T<0 to T=0); it is only true that at the first moment, things are *already* in dependence on God. There really is no contradiction in God being the thing which causes movement in others, without being himself moved.
Here you are trying to obfuscate, Christian theology does not say that there was no moment of creation, the emergence of creation is at the very heart of it. Your idea of causal power being active at every (all) times would result in the effect viz. the product of creation also being present eternally at all times (incompatible with God as pre-existing cause).

>God being conscious and deliberative also doesn't require violating immutability.
God being conscious (which is what Advaita holds) does not violate immutability, however deliberation necessarily does because deliberation is in essence predicated upon change.

>God doesn't know things by forming changing representations in his mind (hence doesn't need to make decisions by shifting around his internal mental states), but by being their total cause, such that every reality derives from him, and is thus already reflected in his being. His knowledge isn't mediated by impressions, but is superior, in that it is immediate: he knows things from the 'inside,' as the reality from which they derive.
Advaita actually agrees with this thought but takes it to its logical conclusion in pointing out that God's immediate and total knowledge of everything as the reality from which they derive rules out the possibility of God deliberating.

Anonymous Wed Dec 26 02:39:18 2018 No.12288227

>>12287834

>God's existence and the existence of things are not said univocally. Existence in creatures is always approximated existence, whereas God's existence is unqualified. Hence the perfect and unlimited existence of God is not in competition with his creatures.
>The qualification of creatures does not somehow impose limits or qualification upon God's own being. Quite the reverse! Qualification is only possible through the unqualified, as approximations are only possible through an end that they approximate, which is not itself approximate. The qualified being of creatures underlines God's infinity, rather than detracts from it.
This doesn't work unless you go with the eastern route of saying the approximated is in reality one with and inseparable from the unlimited (or it was the unlimited all along). If you admit qualification is arbitrary and not based in real distinction than it allows the qualified to not interrupt the infinite, if you insist that the qualified is genuinely separate from the unqualified infinite it becomes a contradiction which renders the infinite of the unqualified impossible.

>God is infinite in the sense that his being is *unqualified,* not that he has an infinite quantity of something, or that he fills an infinite space leaving no space for anything else.
I already understood this and I already meant it in this sense that you explained, all the same points I made still apply under this way that you frame it, this explanation itself refutes none of the objections I've raised. You don't have to visualize it with space or quantity, it simply has to do with limit, if the thing being qualified or if qualified phenomena are something other than the One infinite itself, then their existence makes the One infinite not infinite because something can only be infinite if it contains everything as part of it (which is the only way something can be truly unlimited/infinite viz. containing and including by default all that would otherwise present a limit or delimit it).

>Potency renders qualified being possible, since it is neither non-being nor absolute being, but a finite ordering-towards being, and supplied the principle by which the creature is distinguished from the Creator.
This does nothing to refute the obvious problem mentioned above, if the thing being distinguished isn't the same as the creator in reality it becomes a limit which makes the infinitude of the creator impossible

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 26 03:02:49 2018 No.12288290 File: 114 KB, 909x296, 1444386756266.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >tfw watching two ontotheologists argue about the "necessary behavior" of a fictional fuzzily defined substance

Anonymous Wed Dec 26 03:09:45 2018 No.12288308

>>12288224

Christian theology says that the world began to exist, and that God was the cause of its beginning. It does not imply that there was a pre-temporal time, which would be a contradiction in terms. Besides, God is the cause of things not as a temporally prior 'sufficient condition,' but as that in relation to which they have their being, in the very moment of their being, whether that is the first moment or any subsequent moment. His causative act isn't some static Platonic emanation, but a contingent exercise of his freedom, and that is constantly occurring.

>This doesn't work unless you go with the eastern route of saying the approximated is in reality one with and inseparable from the unlimited (or it was the unlimited all along).

This is plainly false. Contradiction only arises if one posits that the Creator and the creation have being in the same sense, such that the distinction between the two limits (i.e., qualifies) the being of the Creator (i.e., he has *this* being rather than *that* being), even while one insists that the Creator has unqualified being. But their being is not possessed in the same sense, hence, the contradiction does not arise. God is not this or that being, but being itself.

> the very point where this creation or the causal process which creates it connects it to the Immutable (the connection whereby creation is caused by God) is a violation of it because until first creation has occurred this connection is taking place within and thereby violating the immutability of the Everything that is God before creation

Again, you're thinking of divine causation in terms of a crude temporal sequence- something changes in God, then the world emerges. Immutability, violated! But God's causation doesn't work that way, at the first moment or at any subsequent moment.

The 'causal process' is the immediate dependence of the creature upon God. The way in which, from the first moment of its existence to the last, its existence is in relation to and dependent upon God, is the very causal process which links its existence to the act (i.e., God's immutable nature) which creates it. The causal relation has three elements: the actuality which acts as the cause, the relation of the effect to the cause, and the effect itself as constituted by its relation to the actuality. God as the cause is the first element: the perfect act in relation to which all finite acts exist. But occupying this role in the hierarchy of reality does not at all imply internal change in God. The other elements are extrinsic: they are part of how the creature itself is constituted, but not part of how God is constituted. Hence as Aquinas says, the creature is really related to God, but God is not really related to his creatures. Since these relations are extrinsic, they also do not entail any change in God, but only in his creatures.

Anonymous Wed Dec 26 03:10:09 2018 No.12288310

>>12288099
>As he said, you do have an unnecessarily smug approach to your argument here, and defending yourself by pointing out that you're better than the majority of posters doesn't do you any credit. That said, you do provide plenty of good argumentation as well, so such tone criticisms are irrelevant to the argument at hand.

If you reread my posts, I never once said a single statement affirming anything super special about myself such as being exceptionally smart or enlightened (at least I don't think so), I was only meaning to defend the quality and conclusions of Vedanta as a school of thought. It's almost inevitable with these sorts of back and forths arguing over the truth that someone might seem smug and be a little disrespectful in areas. I'm okay with that, I don't claim to be an exceptionally spiritually accomplished person but have probably just as much vice as the next person and am just a lay-person who in their spare time enjoys and seems to derive benefit from studying this stuff. Of course it gets contentious arguing about who understands God correctly, but I see the Christian view and the Vedantic view as actually being very close together next to each other in comparison to athiesm. I have no problems at all with people who believe in the standard Abrahamic deity and am only debating metaphysics here because I like how it activates my almonds and because there's literally no where else on the web or IRL where I live to talk about this stuff with who can provide quick and well-thought out replies. I gotta go to bed now

Anonymous Wed Dec 26 03:40:49 2018 No.12288383
File: 421 KB, 491x1976, The_Aristotelian_Proof.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

This might help although it is just a summary, I would suggest checking out >>12274947 (Edward Feser)'s book 'Five Proofs of the Existence of God' for a full explanation along with the Neo-Platonic, Aristotelian, Augustinian and the Rationalist proof.

Don't be this guy, >>12276524

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 26 03:41:56 2018 No.12288386 File: 451 KB, 488x2127, The_Thomistic_Proof.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12288383 And of course I post the wrong one.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 26 04:23:24 2018 No.12288466 >>12288290 it's embarrassing innit

Anonymous Wed Dec 26 04:35:26 2018 No.12288491

>>12287834
Different anon, but I find it funny that you even hold the speculations of Aquinas, an ordinary human man born in the 1200's, to be exactly representative of the same Deity which Jesus spoke of 1200 years prior. Just as you may also hold to every word of Paul's, and the conclusions of the Nicene Creed, and any other piece of information which has been canonized into the backbone of the institution called "Christianity", despite originating from dozens of differing sources. You hold that the speculations of Aquinas hold for the Father of Christ, yet Christ is not Aquinas, nor spoke what Aquinas did. Yet you place all of this together because it has been presented to you as such, even when Aquinas was as disconnected from Christ and the Father as you and I are.

The philosophy of non-dualism is inherently superior to the Christian doctrines solely on the virtue of its origins being from direct experience. Here you are, a tiny human being, arguing so assuredly on the concept of a Being who you firstly cannot even confirm, secondly cannot know with certainty the exact nature of, and thirdly cannot even comprehend with your finite human mind. And you think you're wise for doing such?

For this reason, the Eastern doctrines will always be superior to the Western ones, as the former are born from internal glimpse of the realities then expounded upon, while the latter culture consists of an amalgam of historical accounts, themselves unconfirmable, and later speculations all wrapped into a single, monolithic tradition. None of us truly know what Genesis details, nor which Gospel is most accurate, nor do we know the extent of Jesus's person beyond whatever account has been given of him and words attributed to him, nor the truth regarding the figure named Paul and his conversion, and yet these and much else have all been bound together into a single institution called "Christianity", whose adherents now feel they must promote and defend. Yet the fundamental tenets of Advaita you could experience directly, even without reading the relevant texts, because the Truth is not constricted along cultural lines (which you necessarily disagree with if you hold to Christian Theology, believing that Semitic culture alone holds the Truth), but is eternal and universal, being able to be arrived at by any individual of any background, without need for a contingent external aid (ex. the Bible).

Whatever your speculations, you know of neither there to be a God at all, let alone the exact nature that would apply to them, as a mind of your size most definitely could only speak from a limited, human understanding of reality and therefore only analogize God to this limited reality you are able to grasp. It is objectively wiser to abandon speculations which are flawed by their very nature, and pursue what metaphysical realities you can yourself see, providing you definite knowledge. In the end, you have either self-speculations or concrete knowledge of the Self.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 26 04:36:07 2018 No.12288493 >>12288290 It's defined quite precisely actually, and far from being fictional is right at the root of our relation to reality.

Anonymous Wed Dec 26 04:40:39 2018 No.12288505
File: 44 KB, 357x400, wittgenstein 3.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>12288493
>It's defined quite precisely actually

Suppose two people were left on earth, all human writings had disappeared as well, and the two people disagreed over the "precise" definition. How do you they determine who is right?

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 26 04:45:16 2018 No.12288515 >>12288505 Not that guy but you only leave two random guys left alive they're bound to both be wrong about most things.

Anonymous Wed Dec 26 04:48:38 2018 No.12288524

>>12288515
Wrong or right in reference to what, though? Where is wrongness and reference "located?" Where the correct definitions stored?

It's fine if they're in God's mind ultimately, but then how do we access that correctly with our own discursive faculties?

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 26 04:58:14 2018 No.12288548 >>12288290 Hinduism isn't ontotheology you fucking retard

Anonymous Wed Dec 26 05:06:29 2018 No.12288558

>>12288548
Hinduism is a religion practiced by many South Asians. The guy in this thread is a neo-Vedantist, which is a neo-Platonist, Westernized re-imagining of ancient Hinduism ca. the second half of the nineteenth century. It owes more to Descartes and to medieval Aristotelianism than Indian philosophy.

Anonymous Wed Dec 26 12:10:43 2018 No.12289916

>>12288491

Aquinas is Christ's faithful servant, connected to Christ by the same Holy Spirit which moves every Christian. As a brilliant philosopher animated by the correct Christian concerns, he is a trustworthy person to learn one's metaphysics from.

I think you misunderstand how the Christian approaches knowledge. We are quite aware of the limits of human power- whether of speculation or 'experience,' and hence we do not put our faith in either, especially in the highest matters. Rather, our trust is in God, who in Christ and through the institutions he has ordained, nourishes our faith, which in turn nourishes our intellects. We do not have to grope blindly towards him, reasoning piecemeal, but are baptised into a church which is his body, within which we exercise our reason. Happily, when we study in this way over many years, we realise that even a very ordinary reasoner can reach to the existence of God and some of his nature- it certainly could not be otherwise, since everything derives from God, and so traces leading back to him are ubiquitous, if one has the correct method for looking, though of course some things are reserved for faith.

You tout the 'internal glimpse' and the universality of Advaita, but these are precisely its weaknesses. First, the human power of introspection is quite limited, and indeed is limited precisely by his finite creaturely essence in much the same way the intellect is. Look within for God, and unless you are moved by God beyond yourself and toward himself, all you will find by application of your own finite power is some idol in your own image, or in the image of your own limitations. This is precisely what happens when, encountering the qualified act at the core of human being, one mistakes that impression for supreme reality. There's nothing particularly commendable about mere introspection as a method, since the human being, as finite, is quite alienated from himself. Mysticism can only be trusted when one is actually moved by faith in the true God, but that outside oneself which one seeks.

Second, any merely universal philosophy will only draw upon what is generally available to human power. But it is our very finite human nature, through which we exist in the first place, which alienates us from God, so the solution to our deepest concerns is hardly going to be relying even more on that finite essence, or the murky glimpse of being which is inevitably wrapped in qualification by that essence. The only possible hope of deliverance is external intervention into our condition. Moreover, it must be an intervention which bridges the human and the divine. And the Christians propose just that: that God took up human nature even in its very particularity, in a particular individual with a particular tribe and history. Thus the Church is both universal in its scope and particular in its claims. Whatever scraps and shards of the truth are present elsewhere, Christ alone is the thread which links man to God.

a_poor_sinner !!eiHxl4pZe1i Wed Dec 26 15:19:59 2018 No.12290827

>>12284933
>In my opinion when you fully go down the rabbit hole of the implications of divine simplicity and immutability that you mention in these posts it actually refutes the Christian understanding of God

>simple, immutable
That IS the Christian understanding of God, in part. We came to know this by Christ, who also taught of the Father and Holy Spirit. God is not changed by being understood as three persons, as God exists apart from the time we measure. Divine simplicity does not mean a singular, monad-like nature. It means God exists without parts and beyond mortal definition. No word is adequate.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 26 15:29:23 2018 No.12290879 >>12287718 based

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 26 18:50:09 2018 No.12291958 bump

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 26 19:00:10 2018 No.12291999 what the FUCK is this autistic arguing about a being we can no nothing about?

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 26 19:08:47 2018 No.12292036 Existence ain't a predicate nigga Say a realicorn is a unicorn that really exists. A non-existent realicorn is a contradiction in terms, therefore a realicorn can't not exist, and by extension therefore unicorns exist.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 26 19:26:09 2018 No.12292134 >>12292036 please put away your word game nonsense

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 26 19:29:48 2018 No.12292152 >>12292134 This is the philosophy board. All philosophy is nothing but word games. Get off if you don't like this.

Anonymous Wed Dec 26 21:20:05 2018 No.12292609

>>12274978
Not accurate.

You are passing a female gene packet of yours to another man to take care of. Whilein his care, she will choose the optimum strategy of passing on her (vis, your) gene packet by producing spawn. This can be by fidelity or by cuck, depending on how fit the husbando is.

You are not being a cuck by having a daughter (if she is legit yours); you are playing the long game.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 26 21:40:05 2018 No.12292663 >>12275203 who's that the mayor of lazy town?

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 27 02:20:38 2018 No.12293629 >>12274932 >implying they've read Aquinas Brainlet

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 27 02:21:54 2018 No.12293634 >>12275203 kek

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 27 02:25:24 2018 No.12293647 File: 145 KB, 500x718, fedoras.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12275948 >>12276233 tip

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 27 02:36:43 2018 No.12293677 >>12287494 This is better than 99% of the posts on 4chan and I think you know that.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 27 02:38:10 2018 No.12293681 >>12274626 First I'm going to start with refuting the question you posed. That is a terrible way to frame a question. If you ever do this in a proper academic setting, you will be vaporized.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 27 02:39:17 2018 No.12293686 >>12291999 >U CANT KNO NUFFIN

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 27 03:22:50 2018 No.12293829 call him a christcuck

Anonymous Thu Dec 27 07:25:55 2018 No.12294412

>>12284933

>A God who abides in His own divine being without change could not create the universe, earth or humankind, because that would involve God doing something which He had not before that moment of creation
God was ALWAYS working his Will...Being eternal makes it impossible not to because everything that has ever been and will be is a but an instant to God, such an instant that it is invisible and incomprehensible.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 27 07:42:56 2018 No.12294469 I don't believe there's such a thing as argumentation that can prove a particular truth, so there's nothing firm or canonical that can be refuted in the first place

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 27 07:51:22 2018 No.12294501 >>12274626 Do I really do that? Do back up that accusation first.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/lit/ - Literature