/theology/

[Anonymous No.19158788]

Theology is the principal science. What are /lit/'s favorite theology books?

[Anonymous No.19159200]

I'm pretty sure science has debunked sky daddy already

[Anonymous No.19159441]

>>19159200
Smoothbrain take

[Anonymous No.19159468]

>>19158788
Fuck you nigger

[Anonymous No.19159470]

>>>/x/

[Anonymous No.19159477]

>>19158788
theology is a fragile discipline
all it takes to abolish it was to rule out the possibility of the christian god, and it was done

[Anonymous No.19160067]

[Anonymous No.19160070]

>>19159477
Fuck you nigger

[Anonymous No.19160073]

>>19158788
I don't think theology should try to be anything its not, such as philosophy, because it is simply dogmatism no matter how you put your universal and particular predicates together in your premisses.

[Anonymous No.19160093]

>>19158788
Theology isn’t a science nevermind philosophy. Theology is simply religion disguised under a pathetic attempt at metaphysics.
Philosophy is naturally at odds with (abrahamic) religion because philosophy is the pursuit of knowledge, while abrahamism is powerless childish whining dogmatism. Anyone who knows the history of philosophy is aware of that.

[Anonymous No.19160117]

>>19160093
No one cares nigger. Ur a fucking loser

[Anonymous No.19160304]

>>19158788
All of St. Thomas Aquinas

[Anonymous No.19160338]

>>19160093
Learn what scientia is.

[Anonymous No.19160359]

>>19160338
you have said nothing

[Anonymous No.19160378]

>>19158788

[Anonymous No.19160382]

>>19160093
So is the philosophy of the Greeks not philosophy because it was concerned with their Gods?

[Anonymous No.19160721]

>>19160093
>Anyone who knows the history of philosophy is aware of that.

Tell it to Copleston.

[Anonymous No.19160740]

>>19160093
hit the nail on the head

[Anonymous No.19160810]

>>19160304
Where do you start with him? Should I start with the Sumas?

[Anonymous No.19160822]

I’ve been reading this lately. It is very interesting to hear about the Orthodox view of Eden and the nature of Adam prior to the Fall. I can’t believe how much these guys can pull out of scripture. It makes me feel dumb by comparison sometimes. I felt the same way about the discussion of certain aspects of Genesis in Seraphim Rose’s book on the topic

[Anonymous No.19160838]

>>19160093
Based. Christcucks fear the philosopher Chad.

[Anonymous No.19160850]

>>19160359
I’ve said everything. Let those with basic fucking acquired Latin from having done any degree hear.

>my degree didn’t force me to acquire basic Latin nouns and verba
You didn’t do a degree.

[Anonymous No.19160856]

>>19159200
Prove it.

[Anonymous No.19160894]

>>19159477
HOLY COPE

[Anonymous No.19160904]

>>19160838
Philosopher chads are Christchads therefore cope, seethe and dilate. You clearly don’t read your history.

[Anonymous No.19160943]

>>19160904
>What Do Philosophers Believe?
>God: atheism 72.8%; theism 14.6%; other 12.6%.
https://philpapers.org/archive/BOUWDP
Seething

[Anonymous No.19160964]

>>19159200
Absolutely wrong.
Science's answer is: we still dont know

[Anonymous No.19160975]

>>19160964
Science shits all over Genesis. Of course you don't need science to see that Genesis was fucking stupid

[Anonymous No.19160985]

>>19160975
You actually think flaws in the Bible = God doesnt exist lol

And you claim to be a rational scientist!

[Anonymous No.19160989]

>>19160943
There's no such profession as "philosopher." Merely historians, rhetoricians, logicians and the like.

[Anonymous No.19160990]

>>19160985
If a scientific theory give the wrong predictions it's wrong. I don't know how it works with religion.

[Anonymous No.19160997]

>>19159200
>>19159441
>>19159468
>>19159470
>>19159477
>>19160070
>>19160073
>>19160093
>>19160117
>>19160338
>>19160359
>>19160382
>>19160721
>>19160740
>>19160838
>>19160850
>>19160856
>>19160894
>>19160904
>>19160943
>>19160964
>>19160975
>>19160985
Shut up and recommend books: Fusus Al-Hikam by Ibn Arabi

[Anonymous No.19161002]

>>19160997

[Anonymous No.19161005]

>>19160990
Like science religion starts off with axioms,
namely the axiom God exists.

Religion recognizes this as faith; ultimately science is unproveable, its based on assumptions.

[Anonymous No.19161010]

>>19161005
Science is inductive not deductive retard. If an assumption is contradicted by evidence you toss the assumption.

[Anonymous No.19161029]

>>19160997
The Triads of Western Spirituality- Gregory Palamas

[Anonymous No.19161030]

>>19159200

[Anonymous No.19161036]

>>19161010
And the assumption of God's existence has never been falsified, which makes you the retard.

[Anonymous No.19161046]

>>19161036
But the claims of Genesis have. The god of the bible has been BTFO

[Anonymous No.19161053]

>>19161046
Has biblical allegory been BTFO?

[Anonymous No.19161058]

>>19161053
How do you prove or disprove an allegory? It can say anything you want. As a statement of actual events the bible has been proven to be false by science.

[Anonymous No.19161069]

>>19159200
Philosophy has debunked religion before it was even invented.

[Anonymous No.19161072]

>>19161058
You mean science has disproven every claim made in the Bible? Seems impossible that science has conclusively proven every claim in the bible to be false.

Regardless, the (potential) existence of God is in no way dependent on the Bible being infallible or without errors.

[Anonymous No.19161089]

>>19161072
So if the Bible being false doesn't matter to the existence of God the Bible being true doesn't provide any evidence for the existence of God either.

[Anonymous No.19161106]

>>19161089
Incorrect. God's existence being non-dependent on the Bible being 100% true does not mean it must necessarily follow that the Bible cannot contain evidences of God's existence.

[Anonymous No.19161110]

An idea I've been playing with for a while, the concept of dar-ul harb is similar to Hobbes' state of nature. In a time where civilization was often defined by it's singularity, in which all other nations where barbarians, the expansion of shariah could have been conceptualized as the spreading of civilization itself. In addition, in Islam the idea of pagan-ness is often connected to jahiliyyah, a concept that carries notions of both barbarity and pagan idolatry. Thoughts? I'm not saying this is a good or bad way of conceptualizing the other nations in question, just that it could be said to be an accurate model for how the Islamic world saw itself.

[Anonymous No.19161122]

>>19161106
That's how fucking induction works you goddamm mongloid. If A implies B and you have B that's evidence for A. Not B is evidence for not A. In fact not B implies not A is the fucking deductively valid contrapositive. Christfags need to be rounded up into camps.

[Anonymous No.19161125]

>>19161106
name 1 'evidences' lol.

[Anonymous No.19161152]

>>19161122
Calmly explain what you think is wrong, I think you are very mistaken (and rude).

[Anonymous No.19161164]

>>19161152
If the Bible being true provides evidence for the existence of God then the Bible being false provides evidence for God's nonexistence. That's how induction works. A->B is the same as ~B->~A and even worse using the contrapositive to reason from ~B to ~A is deductively valid while B to A relies on induction.

[Anonymous No.19161165]

>>19161125
The Bible itself is potential evidence, insomuch as it contains truthful testimony. If you have not falsified this testimony, if you have proven it is 100% false, then you cannot say that the Bible does not contain wisdom or spiritual truth.

[Anonymous No.19161185]

>>19161164
This is irrelevant unless you are claiming the Bible is 100% false.
If you are not claiming it is 100% false, then what percentage is it?
How much of the Bible is true?

[Anonymous No.19161197]

>>19161185
The same fucking argument applies if you're just saying a certain percentage is true. If A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE of the Bible being true is evidence for God's existence then A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE of the Bible being false is evidence for God's nonexistence. Just seeing you flail around like a fucking imbecile confirms in my mind that Christianity is for the intellectually disabled.

[Anonymous No.19161241]

>>19161197
Your argument is stupid and pointless.

[Anonymous No.19161255]

>>19160378
This, it's all you need for anything and everything.

[Anonymous No.19161265]

>>19161122
>If A implies B
Your entire argument falls apart here. Reality isn't as simple as a single conditional statement giving you an absolute outcome. Stop pretending to be superior to people when you can't even make a basic argument in your favor.

[Anonymous No.19161266]

>>19161241
You're the one that came up with this stupid shit to begin with. I said Genesis is BTFO of by science and that is evidence that the God of the Bible doesn't exist. You said no it's not. Then I said that means the Bible being true doesn't provide evidence for God's existence. You said no it doesn't. That is fucking stupid and wrong.

[Anonymous No.19161270]

>>19161165
Imagine telling a christian that his bible is only 23% true, lol.

[Anonymous No.19161273]

>>19161265
I'm not the one that started with the stupid logic tricks. I said Genesis is BTFO of by science and that is evidence that the God of the Bible doesn't exist. Jackass came up with some stupid fucking ass backward logic why it doesn't

[Anonymous No.19161276]

>>19161266
>I said Genesis is BTFO of by science
What does that mean? If Genesis contains truth via allegory, has that been 'BTFO' by science?

[Anonymous No.19161286]

>>19161276
Truth via allegory aka bullshit. Allegory can mean anything you want it to see my original statement here >>19161058

[Anonymous No.19161304]

>>19161286
Ironically, saying science has BTFO genesis is a very unscientific thing to say. Are you saying every claim in the book was investigated and every claim was proven to be false?

[Anonymous No.19161313]

>>19161304
My theory is that the moon is made of blue cheese and that 2+2=4. THE MOON ISN"T FUCKING MADE OF BLUE CHEESE. IS MY THEORY FALSE?

[Anonymous No.19161337]

>>19161313
I have a theory that your arguments are dumb because you are dumb. Is my theory correct?

[Anonymous No.19161341]

>>19161337
Not an answer. Anyone can look at this retarded attempt at sophism by the christcuck and see that popular apologetics at least is moron level.

[Anonymous No.19161385]

>>19161341
You cant be taken seriously when you say Christians should be round up in camps and insult their intelligence. You are a fool and your arguments are dumb.