/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.19937644]

Did Aquinas successfully refute perspectivism and relativism?.

[Anonymous No.19937657]

No. Read Discipline and Punish.

[Anonymous No.19937670]

>>19937657
You didn't elaborate, you just posted a book of the bald guy who liked children.

[Anonymous No.19937676]

>>19937644
No, read Cicero, Sextus Empiricus, and Montaigne.

[Anonymous No.19937731]

>>19937676
What do these authors say?.

Aquinas loved Cicero and developed a lot of his philosophy.

[Anonymous No.19937742]

>>19937644
Why wasn't the Bible good enough for him? Is there anything more dishonest than yet another christer theologian whose most notable achievement is to rehash Greek thought?

[Anonymous No.19937752]

>>19937731
Those writers are philosophical sceptics who treat of themes like the insolubility of metaphysical disputes, the relativity of tastes and judgements among different cultures and species, etc.

[Anonymous No.19937790]

>>19937644
No, read the skeptics and Nagarjuna (the pajeet skeptic).

[Anonymous No.19937801]

>>19937670
There's nothing "Absolute", such as absolute morality. Morality is dictated by those in power, and also science in support of the grand narrative dictated by any power locus. It should be empirically evident in this day and age, scientism, all that jazz.

[Anonymous No.19937843]

>>19937657
>>19937801
Foucaultchads, I'm seriously considering shaving my head and wearing turtlenecks and suits. I have a good hairline and no balding. I want the Foucault look. I dare say it is one of the most iconic of all time. Join me.

[Anonymous No.19937851]

>>19937843
Hey, you stole my idea from yesterday!

[Anonymous No.19937864]

>>19937851
Where? Link to the post or archive link. We arrived at it independently. I can see if I've viewed the thread and was subconsciously influenced by it at all.

[Anonymous No.19937873]

>>19937742
I think you must be an atheist who has never read Aquinas, Saint Thomas taught the cultivators of science how to dispose of subjectivism and existentialism, and I doubt that there is a history of science book that has come out in the last 70 years in which he is not named.

>rehash Greek thought?
There are differences between Aquinas and Aristotle thought, and there are a lot of things in Aquinas philosophy that completed Aristotle.

>>19937752
>>19937790
Aquinas didn't have interest in skepticism, he occasionally makes references to sensory illusions, but he sees them as no epistemological threat because he held the Aristotelian belief that the cognitive process is fundamentally a reliable one, and his aim was to explain the processes by which knowledge is acquired, rather than aiming to justify knowledge.

>>19937801
>There's nothing "Absolute", such as absolute morality.
That was refuted by Plato with the Form of the Good.

>Morality is dictated by those in power
"Might makes right" was refuted by Plato in the Republic, Book I, see the dialogue between Thrasymachus and Socrates. Also pagans have been mogged for the last 2000 years, xd.

[Anonymous No.19937889]

>>19937864
I didn't post but it was genuinely my idea in my head yesterday.

>>19937873
>Plato
And? Do you find his ideas empirically accurate?

[Anonymous No.19937896]

>>19937644
Thoughts on the Aquinas Institute's releases of his stuff versus other ones? Theirs are all Latin-English and numbered.

[Anonymous No.19937904]

>>19937644
im bout to watch a 15 minute youtube video on this nigga and see what hes all about

[Anonymous No.19937906]

>>19937889
>foucault chads are now telepathically linked
bros.... we can't stop winning.

[Anonymous No.19937918]

>>19937889
>empirically accurate
ang*lo buzzword. empiricism is irrelevant

[Anonymous No.19937925]

>>19937644
Did Hume successfully refute Aquinas? Or was it Kant?

[Anonymous No.19937928]

>>19937889
>And? Do you find his ideas empirically accurate
Yup.

[Anonymous No.19937941]

>>19937918
Then you'll get a bunch of nonsense.

>>19937925
This chad right here

[Anonymous No.19937944]

>>19937941
You didn't answer the anon who talked about Socrates.

[Anonymous No.19937957]

>>19937925
>Hume
Hume's fork, which is itself neither true by virtue of the relations of its constituent ideas, nor true by virtue of empirically ascertainable facts, is notoriously self-refuting.

>Kant
Which idea?.

[Anonymous No.19937962]

>>19937941
Anon... you replied to me twice. Empiricism is the biggest nonsense, save for relativism and its nietzschean variant perspectivism, which are even worse than empiricism. Transcendental Idealism is the way.

[Anonymous No.19937980]

>>19937944
He posted at the same time as my post. Also, Socrates' conception is for a lack of better word, too idealistic and easily refuted by numerous CIA backed dictatorships in the latter half of the 20th century.

[Anonymous No.19937988]

>>19937980
I'm not talking empiricism in the sense of "way to gain knowledge" which I take from your conception comparing it with transcendental idealism. This is not empiricism vs rationalism debate. Rather empirical evidence is a justification for moral relativism.

[Anonymous No.19937995]

>>19937962
Wtf, I answered to myself

[Anonymous No.19938005]

>>19937980
How do those dictatorships refute the premise when you and all the people who lived in them knew it was wrong?. We're talking about morals and you came out with something totally different.

[Anonymous No.19938008]

>>19937873
>there are a lot of things in Aquinas philosophy that completed Aristotle
That's a pretty conceited view. Aristotle wasn't waiting for someone to reconcile his work with the Torah

[Anonymous No.19938021]

>>19938008
Aristotle had arguments in favor of the existence of God, although I understand what you are trying to say, anyway not all of Aquinas's philosophy is that and Aristotle can be considered a proto-Christian.

[Anonymous No.19938031]

>>19937657
this guy makes me feel bad about wearing turtlenecks

[Anonymous No.19938035]

>>19937657
This is all that post deserves
https://youtu.be/GHxILdN-PRQ

[Anonymous No.19938073]

>>19937644
The guy posting Foucault hasn't even read Aquinas's Wikipedia entry.

[Anonymous No.19938106]

>>19938005
But at the time when they were in power, they are immune to justice, probably even so the populations believe they represent justice. Also, look at North Korea.

[Anonymous No.19938119]

>>19937873
>held the Aristotelian belief that the cognitive process is fundamentally a reliable one,
It honestly perplexes me that people disagree with this or that our senses are mostly reliable. How could we operate in the world at all if it weren't true?

[Anonymous No.19938137]

>>19937801
That's Lyotard, dumbfuck

[Anonymous No.19938150]

>>19938119
>He didn't read Spinoza

[Anonymous No.19938166]

>>19938021
>Aristotle can be considered a proto-Christian
This is the same exact conceited point just rephrased differently. Your Bible should be enough for you.

[Anonymous No.19938180]

>>19938106
>But at the time when they were in power, they are immune to justice
Justice is giving each his own. These people in power were promoting injustice as a virtue, doesn't that means that justice is more than power and your conception is self-refuting?.

>even so the populations believe they represent justice.
Person A thinks that 2 + 2 = 7, Person B thinks that 2 + 2 = 16 and Person C thinks that 2 + 2 = 4. It's relative, but that doesn't make Person A and B right about their assumptions.

[Anonymous No.19938185]

>>19938150
I don't read retards.

[Anonymous No.19938187]

>>19938166
>Your Bible should be enough for you.
Why? The Church predates the first NT book in the Bible by 30 years, meaning there are Christian teachings and practices that the Apostles affirmed that predate the NT.

[Anonymous No.19938188]

>>19937873
Plato and the other metaphysicians are refuted in the writings of Cicero and Sextus Empiricus. See: Academica, De natura deorum, Outlines of Pyrrhonism,

[Anonymous No.19938217]

>>19938188
I gave a well-substantiated comment about how skepticism does not present problems for Aristotelian epistemology and Aquinas was familiar with their philosophy, naming books at random is not an answer and I cannot take your comment seriously (although thanks for the recommendations I will read them).

[Anonymous No.19938311]

>>19938187
Aristotle wasn't an apostle, nor was he a prophet of Israel. How could he be taken as authoritative?

[Anonymous No.19938934]

>>19938188
>Cicero
Peak midwit assblasted that Cataline was a no nonsense man who didn't believe in spooks and therefore couldnt fall for cissy's rhetorical wiles. If I could go back in time and give one person modern weapons, it'd be Chad Cataline. I'd also show him all the shit sickero wrote about him after he was dead and couldn't defend himself. Imagine unironically referring to Cicero. Imagine unironically acting as if this litersl clown refuted metaphysics when in reality Augustine mentions his recount of the philosphers in hortentious an affirmation rather than a refutation of metaphysics. You're as dishonest as Slickero so fitting that you mention him.

[Anonymous No.19938989]

>>19938311
God gave the Greeks philosophy. It's all a part of His plan.

[Anonymous No.19938991]

>>19938989
Is this a serious post or are you being ironic?

[Anonymous No.19939008]

>>19938934
>Imagine unironically acting as if this litersl clown refuted metaphysics when in reality Augustine mentions his recount of the philosphers in hortentious an affirmation rather than a refutation of metaphysics.
Augustine also wrote an entire dialogue trying to refute Cicero’s ‘Academica’. If you hate spooks you should venerate Cicero, an original spookbuster

[Anonymous No.19939022]

>>19937644
Nietzsche btfo everyone who are trying to deduce unconditional morality rationally. Morals are created by insincts and are always attuned to the specific life circumstances and serve their purpose of growth and flourishing.

[Anonymous No.19939023]

I don't understand the appeal of thomism or aristotelian theism. The first mover and related arguments were never compelling to me. There are no real refutations of nominalism or relativism.

[Anonymous No.19939068]

>>19939023
The appeal in the modern world is that it distinguishes you from other people

[Anonymous No.19939074]

>>19939068
Most people aren't real nominalists but assuming so, what of it? I'm not going to pretend to agree with aristotle just to feel special, it's not like I have much contact with other people anyway.

[Anonymous No.19939076]

>>19939074
I’m just describing why people on /lit/ become Thomists. It’s not because they’re experienced logicians who are familiar with all medieval and modern philosophy and have accepted Scholastic arguments from pure reasoning. Most of the time it is an aesthetic choice + social posturing

[Anonymous No.19939087]

>>19939076
Yeah okay, I agree with you. But honestly most normal people aren't actually relativist postmodernists, even the most unhinged critical theory types don't apply their post-structuralist narrative to their own biases (marxism, feminism, etc). Intellectual honesty would have them drop their ideologies.

[Anonymous No.19939088]

>>19939087
Oh, I agree. Most people are dogmatists and moralists

[Anonymous No.19939107]

>>19939023
>There are no real refutations of nominalism
Are you delusional?. The best mathematicians in history were platonists.

[Anonymous No.19939114]

>>19939107
That's not a refutation. I'm aware of mathematical platonism.

[Anonymous No.19939134]

>>19939114
>I'm aware of mathematical platonism.
THAT'S THE REFUTATION DUMBASS

[Anonymous No.19939139]

>>19939134
How so?

[Anonymous No.19939853]

>>19939008
>original spookbuster.
Holy Mother of COPE. Sissyro was the original soiboy and was even more spooked than the platonists. Read his seethings against Catalus. It's something to paste with a soijack face. I've also never seen anyone in antiquity make logical fallacies and nonsequitors like he does. Case in point, Second Philippic.
>NOOOOO MARC ANTONY IS LE BAD..... BEGGING THE QUESTION AD INFITUM... BECAUSE UHHHHH...... SLAVE GRANDMOTHER....WHOAH HE HEEDS TO BE HECKIN EXECUTED
He's extremely spooked and stupid and you must be too.

[Anonymous No.19939917]

>>19938989
I suppose he also told the early church writers to be contemptuous of philosophy

[Anonymous No.19939943]

>>19939917
Don't bother, christianity is literally a mind virus
>can I spin this to fit my narrative? ok then that means god put it there for me no matter how contrived the explanation may seem
>does this contradict my narrative no matter the mental gymnastics I put myself through? uhhh... DEMONS

[Anonymous No.19939947]

>>19939917
Ever heard of Justin Martyr?

[Anonymous No.19939977]

>>19939947
>guy who got martyred has "Martyr" as a last name
christians expect me to believe this shit?

[Anonymous No.19940000]

>>19939947
Well it seems like he was a Gentile so of course he wanted to keep elements of his Gentile philosophy. But none of that it necessary to Christianity and where it contradicts scripture it is dropped.

[Anonymous No.19940030]

>>19940000
>it seems like he was a Gentile
Obviously, scripture is a higher authority than philosophy. But the fact is that philosophy and revelation have been harmoniously intertwined since the earliest days of Christianity. The Gospel of John baptizes the Greek concept of the Logos, St. Paul preached to Greek philosophers, Dionysius the Areopagite and St. Augustine baptize both the Neoplatonist methods of discussing the One, and the contemplative methods found within their corpus - St. Gregory of Nyssa uses Aristotle in his writings, and is followed by St. John Damascene and St. Thomas Aquinas. You are trying to make a dichotomy where none exists - the history of Christianity IS the history of philosophy.

[Anonymous No.19940035]

>>19940030
>the history of Christianity IS the history of philosophy.
How conceited. The history of Christianity is picking concepts that suit the faith from various philosophies and disregarding or downright destroying the rest.

[Anonymous No.19940073]

>>19940030
>You are trying to make a dichotomy where none exists
It obviously exists since the pagan theologians and philosophers were not Yahwehists and the pre-christer Abrahamics refused to allow Yahweh to be identified with Zeus or Jupiter. The entirety of Abrahamic religion is founded upon a distinction between true and false god(s) that was unknown to the more henotheistic platonists, for whom one god could rule over many. Christers merely deleted the points they didn't like and kept the "one god," who they lacked serious theological arguments for as a result of relying on charismatic preaching and fideism. This became embarassing the more Christianity spread and came into contact with educated Romans, i.e. pagans, like Justin Martyr, who began writing "apologies" for their conversions, that is to say "noooo i'm not a gullible cultist who meets under the cover of darkness to worship a weird foreign god I share with an anti-Roman minority i'm a good middle platonist." And indeee, platonic theology and the study of rhetoric remained compelling parts of intellectual life for the rest of the life of the Roman empire, and the later Julian Augustus was astutely aware of the impact pagan education was having on otherwise inarticulate christers and tried to ban their children from it.

[Anonymous No.19940089]

>>19939943
>uhhh... DEMONS
Kek accurate

[Anonymous No.19940117]

>>19937657
>rapes a bunch of north african pre-pubescent boys on a trip to Northern Africa and the entire media knows about it but remains silent
Why are the French this way brehs?

[Anonymous No.19940126]

>>19940035
That is great and High IQ

[Anonymous No.19940127]

>>19940126
>anti-intellectualism is high IQ
Never change /lit/

[Anonymous No.19940163]

>>19940035
>The history of Christianity is picking concepts that suit the faith from various philosophies and disregarding or downright destroying the rest.
Separating the wheat from the chaff. You’re no different than a blue-haired dyke complaining about cultural appropriation

[Anonymous No.19940176]

>>19940163
Try again. The warning coloration crowd are themselves the intellectual heirs of Christianity, identifying and exorcising demons from public discourse, on the basis of a just-so body of dogmatic views about who is most pious

[Anonymous No.19940183]

>>19940163
>Separating the wheat from the chaff.
You people are incredible at mental gymnastics. Sure thing bro, picking concepts from philosophers that you can twist in order to say "I made this" while burning the writings of people who make you uncomfortable truly is separating the wheat from the chaff. lmao

[Anonymous No.19940202]

>>19940183
I forget if it was Augustine or Tertullian but one of them compares this borrowing of infidel philosophy to the Israelites being allowed to plunder the gold and treasure of other peoples they fought in the scripture. Of course, those passages were not written for bacchants larping as Israelites, they were written for the Israelites.

[Anonymous No.19940208]

>>19940202
>bacchants larping as Israelites,
Careful, you're gonna attract the coping "christianity is anti-jewish" zoomers.

[Anonymous No.19940221]

>>19940208
Well it is, in the sense that say Samsung is anti-Apple. But they both make nearly identical cell phones in China

[Anonymous No.19940387]

>>19940035
I mean, like it or not, the world doesn't revolve around you, it revolves around Jesus Christ and His Church. That's why we're living in the year 2022 of Our Lord Jesus Christ. The history of philosophy is the history of Christianity because what is in actuality good, true, and beautiful, belongs to the Logos (by definition). As Jesus is the Logos, that means it belongs to Him. And because We are His mystical body, that means it belongs to Us.

>>19940073
>the pre-christer Abrahamics refused to allow Yahweh to be identified with Zeus or Jupiter
Obviously, because Zeus and Jupiter are not the most high God, they were begotten of "Titans" who themselves were begotten. To try to identify He Who Is with those minor spirits would be a complete logical contradiction, so good on those who did not do so.
>whom one god could rule over many
If the One of Plato and Aristotle exists (which one can prove logically), there can be no other "gods", because that would be a logical contradiction in what it means to have an essence of pure act. They would, at best, be called "sons of God" or little-g "gods", as they are in scripture - of the same status as humans, infinitely lower than the One True God, the One who is deserving of worship for creating All.
>Christians merely deleted the points they didn't like and kept the "one god,"
Because it is the only logical choice. Why would anybody worship a lesser divinity who is not the One God who created All?
>>19940176
Obviously, the modern SJW movement is a result of Marxist postmodernism, which was by and large a Jewish (read: anti-Christ) philosophical movement. Your whole view of history seems to be distorted by an incredible amount of hatred for Jesus Christ and His Church.
>>19940208
Are you seriously implying that Christianity is pro-jewish?
>"[...] the Jews, who killed both the Lord Jesus and their own prophets, and drove us out as well. They are displeasing to God and the enemies of all mankind" (1 Thes 2:15)
Try preaching that in a Synagogue.
"And I am aware of the slander of those who falsely claim to be Jews, but are in fact a synagogue of Satan" (Revelation 2:9)

[Anonymous No.19940395]

>>19940387
>it revolves around Jesus Christ and His Church.
Source: the bible
kek

[Anonymous No.19940400]

>>19940395
Yeah, remind me what year it is again?

[Anonymous No.19940403]

>>19937801
In a godless world, sure. But in a world with a God morality is objective.

[Anonymous No.19940407]

>>19940387
Please shut the fuck up, larper.
>>19940400
>historical consensus defines the current zeitgeist
Remind me which countries currently have Christianity as their state religion? Yeah that's right.

[Anonymous No.19940411]

>>19940403
There is no supreme creator God, but physicalism is wrong. The only problem is suffering.

[Anonymous No.19940412]

>>19940407
>Please shut the fuck up, larper.
Wow, how unexpected, an anti-Christ who is also anti-Logos! Who could have possible predicted this weird turn of events?

[Anonymous No.19940425]

>>19940412
Your larping is meaningless to me because I don't believe in zombie jew.

[Anonymous No.19940439]

>>19940387
>Why would anybody worship a lesser divinity who is not the One God who created All?
Because in other less despotic cultures there are intermediaries in this life and the next who govern their allotted spaces and times. In fact, even Christianity preserves this by means of Jesus and the Holy Spirit, but smears them with the One and argues he is three persons at once, which is entirely incoherent and even admitted to be a mystery by christers, whose frankentheology is correctly identified as polytheism by rival abrahamists.
Marxism was founded by the same rabbinical characters as Christianity. I really don't see how you can be an anti-semite without detonating your entire religion, or indeed anti-progressive and still enter the kingdom of heaven, a classless society in which all riches are parted with. Are you going to reject the prophets of Israel, whose testimonies are your only confirmation that Christ is the messiah? How would you recognize him without first bowing to their authority to show you the signs by which he will be known? Have some respect for your spiritual elders.

[Anonymous No.19940440]

>>19940387
>If the One of Plato and Aristotle exists (which one can prove logically)
No, none of the arguments in favor of the first mover are compelling to me. You christians would be infinitely more tolerable if you stopped pretending your religion was "provable". Like all other religions, it hinges on belief, you are not special. Same for western buddhists and their "buddhism is scientific bro" nonsense.

[Anonymous No.19940447]

>>19940439
To this he will answer that the current genetic heritage of jews is not the same as the genetic heritage of biblical jews and that we wuz the real jews and shieet.

[Anonymous No.19940453]

>>19940403
Christers don't believe in "a world with God" anyway, he is taken to be entirely transcendent and to have created ex nihilo. The world is entirely emptied of God, unless you are some sort of Spinozist or henotheist, and these are both heresies. Now do please shut yourself up in a monastery and hide away from us demons who govern matter.

[Anonymous No.19940458]

>>19940411
Based Roerich poster

[Anonymous No.19940474]

>>19940458
>Nagarjuna
How did he get everything so right, bros?

[Anonymous No.19940475]

>>19940447
Yes it's all so tiresome. In the 300s, he would have said their temple was destroyed so he was the real inheritor of their religion and theirs was invalidated, another just-so explanation that misses the point despite his walking and quacking like a duck from the same pond of Galilee

[Anonymous No.19940486]

>>19940474
Literally just found it by conquering some dragons. No suicide by Roman cop required

[Anonymous No.19940492]

>>19940425
I get it - you, somebody who is anti-Logos, define yourself based on your opposition to Jesus Christ. Do you think you're doing something groundbreaking here? In today's world, people like you who hate Jesus Christ and His Church, while enjoying the fruits of stability and technology that We gave you, are a dime a dozen. You are literally on the same team as materialist anti-Christ Jews and SJWs. If you think that's a gotcha, more power to you.

>>19940439
>there are intermediaries in this life and the next who govern their allotted spaces and times
Yes, which we refer to as "angels". But to worship them is literally pants-on-head-retarded. You worship the One who created the angels, not the angel itself.
>even Christianity preserves this by means of Jesus and the Holy Spirit, but smears them with the One and argues he is three persons at once
Complete ahistorical nonsense. John 1 very clearly articulates the consubstantiality of Jesus with the Father.
>which is entirely incoherent
Give an argument, then, because I find no logical contradiction with the doctrine of the Trinity, especially to those who charge it with polytheism (invariably just a lack of theological knowledge).
>I really don't see how you can be an anti-semite without detonating your entire religion
I am not an "anti-Semite" (that is a word used as a psy-op). The reason why one can be against Jews, but still be a Christian, is simple - Jews used to be the chosen people, but with the advent of God's Son, the covenant was no longer limited to Jews, but to all mankind. The Jews, in rejecting Jesus Christ, are now anti-Christ, a synagogue of Satan. That is why Paul can rightly say, "they please not God, and are the enemies of all mankind".
>>19940440
Sure, but that doesn't mean that they aren't logical proofs. You have to give actual logical refutations if you want to be taken seriously.
>Like all other religions, it hinges on belief, you are not special.
The only thing that requires belief is the miracles and resurrection of Christ. Everything else is provable, including the existence of God.
>>19940453
>The world is entirely emptied of God
"God intended that they would seek Him and perhaps reach out for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us. ‘For in Him we live and move and have our being.’ As some of your own poets have said, ‘We are His offspring.’ Therefore, being offspring of God, we should not think that the Divine Being is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by man’s skill and imagination.

Although God overlooked the ignorance of earlier times, He now commands all people everywhere to repent. For He has set a day when He will judge the world with justice by the Man He has appointed. He has given proof of this to everyone by raising Him from the dead.” - St. Paul

[Anonymous No.19940496]

Bros I'm sensing some epistemological weight around here...

[Anonymous No.19940510]

>>19940492
>I get it [...]
Evidently not since everything you said is a laughable strawman directed at someone who most definitely isn't me. I don't hate Jesus; I don't care about him. His followers annoy me, because they are obnoxious self-righteous brainlets like you who think everything revolves around their dead cult.

[Anonymous No.19940514]

>>19940496
>uh-oh fellow worshippers of fictional Indian characters, somebody is trying to engage in Logos...

[Anonymous No.19940517]

>>19940514
>Logos
Stop larping. It's embarrassing, really. The only thing you're engaging in is shitflinging about a dying religion on the literature board of an anime website. Go get some air.

[Anonymous No.19940529]

>>19940492
>But to worship them is literally pants-on-head-retarded
Most christers in practice disagree with this and pray directly to angels and saints and don't bother formulating that these go through God and have no power of their own to affect things. No true christman huh

[Anonymous No.19940541]

>>19940510
>I don't hate Jesus; I don't care about him. His followers annoy me
"Whoever listens to you listens to Me; whoever rejects you rejects Me; and whoever rejects Me rejects the One who sent Me.” (Luke 10:16)
"This is the antichrist, who denies the Father and the Son. Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father, but whoever confesses the Son has the Father as well." (1 John 2:22)

>>19940517
Interesting - an anti-Christ continuing to refuse to engage in dia-logos. You guys sure keep proving me wrong!

>>19940529
>asking for intercession is worship
Again, extreme lack of theological knowledge. Then again, if you were seriously a seeker, you probably wouldn't be posting about how much you don't believe in Jesus on the internet.

[Anonymous No.19940544]

>>19940514
>logos
>i-made-this.jpeg
Could you be any more dishonest in your hodgepodge of Platonism and Messianic Judaism

[Anonymous No.19940545]

>>19940492
>You have to give actual logical refutations
Refutations of what? There is no more evidence for the first cause than for turtles all the way down. I prefer the latter explanation because it doesn't hinge on some ad hoc rationalization of "well everything is caused except for this uncaused things which causes caused things to be caused because... that's just how it is, ok?"
>The only thing that requires belief is the miracles and resurrection of Christ.
And I don't believe in those.
>Everything else is provable, including the existence of God.
The thing is that your "proofs" are abstractions, like the rest of metaphysics. You cannot provide gneuine evidence for the existence of the first mover.

[Anonymous No.19940552]

>>19940541
>"Whoever [...]
Yes, whoever disagrees with your religion is damned. Why should I care about this? I don't believe in your cult, so why did you think posting quotes from the bible would sway me? You're not making sense.

[Anonymous No.19940553]

>>19940541
>AAAAAAAAH IT'S AN ANTI CHRIST SAVE ME YESHUA BEN YOSEF THIS DEMON DOESN'T WANT TO ARGUE ABOUT ZOMBIE JEWS ON THE INTERNET

refer to >>19939943

[Anonymous No.19940559]

>>19940541
>extreme lack of theological knowledge
I am talking about the practice. You've replaced Athena and Apollo and their daemons with saints and angels, and attempted to square this with the Torah. Not everyone cares to do this monotheological muttering and instead just keeps to the very human practice of recognizing a sort of polytonal divine, which manifests in all sorts of forms and hierarchies and spheres of influence.

[Anonymous No.19940570]

>>19940514
>worshippers of fictional Indian characters
As opposed to worshipers of fictional jewish characters? I prefer the pajeets, they've got cooler lore.

[Anonymous No.19940576]

>>19937644
>akikenas
>refute anything

[Anonymous No.19940584]

>>19937644
No but I did
Get some pussy nigga.

[Anonymous No.19940589]

I don't understand why it's so difficult for christians to accept some people just don't believe in their religion.
I'm not being facetious here, I really don't get it. It really seems to be an abrahamic thing. The rest don't throw a tantrum if you tell them their doctrine makes no sense to you and you just don't buy it; it's only the abrahamists, and specifically christians. Why? What's so hard to understand about me not buying into aristotelian metaphysics and your bible narrative?

[Anonymous No.19940596]

>>19940486
How good is that start with the japs chart by the way? I'm intrigued by zen, shingon, tendai etc

[Anonymous No.19940607]

>>19940545
>There is no more evidence for the first cause than for turtles all the way down.
Except the existence of an actual series of infinite events in reality is completely illogical. See Hilbert's paradox of the grand hotel. The only logical option is an uncaused cause.
>And I don't believe in those.
We weren't talking about those, we are talking about God and whether one can logically prove His existence.
>The thing is that your "proofs" are abstractions, like the rest of metaphysics.
So is your epistemological system. If we discard the axiom that one can derive truths about reality from the use of the mind, then there is no logical reason to hold to your perspective, either.
>You cannot provide gneuine evidence for the existence of the first mover.
A logical proof is genuine evidence, unless you are some species of physicalist, which itself is self-refuting.
>>19940552
>Why should I care about this?
You don't have to, if you don't want to. It's between you and God whether you genuinely choose to seek, or choose not to. As long as you accept the consequences of whatever comes should Jesus Christ be correct, you have the right to do what you want.
>>19940553
Again, shutting down conversation just proves my case even further. I'm happy to have an intelligent dialogue, if you'd like, but I'm not going to hold my breath that you change your disposition towards Truth and the Logos in this conversation.
>>19940559
>You've replaced Athena and Apollo and their daemons with saints and angels, and attempted to square this with the Torah
Except one does not worship the angels or saints, but larping "pagans" legitimately try to worship those lesser spirits.
>keeps to the very human practice of recognizing a sort of polytonal divine, which manifests in all sorts of forms and hierarchies and spheres of influence.
Yeah, which leads to 33 million "gods", some of which are mythologized versions of Indian warriors, or completely fake inventions like an elephant who writes - and which also leads to people choosing to "worship god" by following the attributes and practices of their chosen "divinity" (eg. I can fornicate and get drunk all I want, because I'm worshipping Dionysius!)
>>19940570
>Jesus is fictional
You're free to contradict the vast majority of even atheist scholars, but if you do so without reason, you're darkening your mind with irrationality.
>>19940589
>What's so hard to understand about me not buying into aristotelian metaphysics and your bible narrative?
We don't want you to go to Hell for all eternity. Jews don't really care because the Messiah will one day enslave all the goyim, Muslims actually hope that you go to Hell because your suffering will be propitiation for their sins, Buddhists and Hindus aren't evangelizing because death is not an ultimate end to opportunity. Only Christians seem to care enough about preventing a negative afterlife for their fellow humans to actually bother them about it.

[Anonymous No.19940619]

>>19940596
Well there's no Tendai on there since you'd need a bigger chart, but BDK has English translations of the Lotus Sutra and some of Tiantai texts from the Taisho canon. Of course, before diving into any Chinese or Japanese Buddhist lit it would be in your best interest to read the Indian first. Kind of like reading say Martin Luther without reading the Gospels

[Anonymous No.19940621]

>>19940607
>See Hilbert's paradox of the grand hotel.
This doesn't illustrate the logical impossibility of infinite sets, though.
>We weren't talking about those
Cool, so why are you bashing people for not being christians?
>So is your epistemological system
Yep, it's founded on belief, I choose to belief recursion instead of the prime mover because both are equally impossible to actually demonstrate and one makes more sense to me.
Why aren't you a skeptic?
>A logical proof is genuine evidence
Except there is no logical proof of god's existence that isn't met with an opposing refutation. You are pretending that there are no refutations of aristotle's arguments, which isn't true.

[Anonymous No.19940635]

>>19940607
>which leads to 33 million "gods", some of which are mythologized versions of Indian warriors, or completely fake inventions
Ah ah ah, why isn't yours completely fake? He started out as a tribal war god of a random people. Only later did he become The One. What gives? How can you be an atheist and a theist at the same time?

[Anonymous No.19940642]

>>19940607
>go to Hell for all eternity
That's nice of you but this doctrine is completely incoherent and anyone who isn't a christian is aware of that, so you really don't need to bother.
Fear-mongering doesn't work on me.
>whether you genuinely choose to seek
Not that guy, but I have genuinely chosen to seek, and this brought me farther and farther away from christianity to the point I cannot even begin to envision it as a possibility anymore. You should stop pridefully assuming your position is the only one that makes sense.

[Anonymous No.19940649]

>>19940607
>shutting down conversation just proves my case
>people don't want to argue with me because I'm an obnoxious retard, that means I'm right
someday when you graduate high school you will understand why that line of thought is not sustainable
>Truth and the Logos
yawn

[Anonymous No.19940660]

>>19940607
>Only Christians seem to care enough
If you seriously believe this you've never meaningfully engaged with another religion.

[Anonymous No.19940666]

>>19940492
>>19940607
Hey epistemology anon, I want you to know — and I am being completely sincere and honest when I say this, although you might not believe me but that's fine — that your posts, that I often see while lurking these threads, have single-handedly turned me away from Christianity for good.

[Anonymous No.19940672]

>>19940666
unfortunate trips kek

[Anonymous No.19940674]

>>19940666
The absolute epistemological weight of those digits

[Anonymous No.19940676]

>>19940621
>This doesn't illustrate the logical impossibility of infinite sets, though.
I'm not talking about the mathematical abstraction of an infinite set, but "an actual series of infinite events in reality", which Hilbert's hotel does refute. "As an illustrative embodiment of transfinite arithmetic based on the axiomatic set theory, Hilbert's Hotel will, of necessity, be as logically consistent as that system; otherwise it would be useless as an illustration. But is also vividly illustrates the absurd situations to which the real existence of an infinite multitude can lead [...] The absurdity is not merely practical and physical; it is ontologically absurd that a hotel exist which is completely full and yet can accommodate untold infinites of new guests just by moving people around." (The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, 111)
>Cool, so why are you bashing people for not being christians?
Where am I bashing anybody? The reason I'm discussing this is to hopefully show that the most rational position is theism. From there, it's a lot easier to discuss why Christianity is true.
>I choose to belief recursion instead of the prime mover because both are equally impossible
Completely disagree. How is a prime mover illogical?
>Except there is no logical proof of god's existence that isn't met with an opposing refutation
The logical proof is sound, it is the premises which one must attack - and from what I have heard or seen, and I am very opening to hear your refutation of any of the premises - they all fail to actually rebut the premise.
>>19940635
>Only later did he become The One.
Incorrect. Read Exodus 3:14 and ponder what it means.
>>19940642
>That's nice of you but this doctrine is completely incoherent
What is your argument? It appears to me completely logically coherent to suggest that an infinitely just God can punish who He chooses in whatever way He sees fit.
>Not that guy, but I have genuinely chosen to seek, and this brought me farther and farther away from christianity to the point I cannot even begin to envision it as a possibility anymore.
The same happened to me, and then I eventually came full circle after exploring the other religions. Never stop seeking, and call upon God to guide you whenever you seek.
>You should stop pridefully assuming your position is the only one that makes sense.
How is prideful if it's true? What position do you have? Maybe it will make sense to me, but so far, most everything I have seen is incoherent in some way.
>>19940649
>>Truth and the Logos
>yawn
Exactly. Thanks for trying.
>>19940660
When was the last time you saw Jews or Buddhists evangelizing? We can agree that Muslims have daw'ah, but in the end, they reject free will and are only trying to find those who Allah has already predestined to choose Him. It's a false kind of evangelism.

[Anonymous No.19940687]

>>19940666
Satan trips rejecting Christ forever? How poetic.

[Anonymous No.19940692]

>>19940687
Yes, and it's your fault. Literally.

[Anonymous No.19940701]

>>19940692
You have free-will. In the end, when you stand before God and have to answer the charge of lying and rejecting His Son's sacrifice which He made on your behalf, your defense will be "some guy on a literature forum represented your position in a way that I found distateful". Good luck with that.

[Anonymous No.19940710]

>>19940676
You can reinterpret Exodus all you like. The God who intervened to favor Israel over an Egypt he had not made a demonic pact with is not the one of Platonic theology, he is very obviously a minor tutelary god of that tribe

[Anonymous No.19940715]

>>19940676
The part you quoted in no way refutes dependent origination. I don't think you understand what pratityasamutpada is.
>the most rational position is theism.
No, the uncaused cause is a shoddy argument. See the dozens of threads of guenonfag getting repeatedly btfo about his indo-thomism, it's the same thing here. Taking the twelve links of dependent origination and adding a thirteenth one that is uncaused doesn't solve anything.
>why Christianity is true
You will never be able to do this without getting people to accept your faith claims, which can be dismissed without justification because they are faith claims.
>from what I have heard or seen
It's very easy to present your own arguments and refuse to take into account any opposing ones.

[Anonymous No.19940722]

>>19940701
>when you stand before God and have to answer the charge of lying and rejecting His Son's sacrifice which He made on your behalf
Just picturing this scene is laughable to me. Do you really believe in this shit? I'm gonna stand before God and he's going to burn forever because he loves me?

[Anonymous No.19940736]

>>19940676
>evangelizing
>what is Nichiren
>what is the entire doctrine of compassion and the bodhisattva path
Just stop

[Anonymous No.19940752]

>>19940676
>an infinitely just God
Source?
>can punish who He chooses in whatever way He sees fit.
Glad we agree on the fact that he's a petty cunt for unleashing eternal suffering in his omnipotence, omniscience and infinite benevolence on some clueless dude who just didn't find the idea of resurrection very compelling and who got turned off from the religion after seeing how fucking retarded its proponents tend to act.
>I eventually came full circle
Yeah I know a few stories like that. Usually boils down to not wanting to face reality, not saying that's your case, but the people I know who looked into these subjects seriously and defaulted back to christianity just went too deep and desperately clung to the idea that an all-powerful god existed and cared about them.
>How is prideful
Well, it makes sense you can't see it.

[Anonymous No.19940780]

https://www.britannica.com/science/philosophy-of-mathematics/The-epistemological-argument-against-Platonism
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/64338/argument-against-platonism
A simple google search gives compelling arguments against platonism, and thus aristotelianism and its cryptosemitic ripoffs (thomism etc)

[Anonymous No.19940791]

>>19940619
Is Tendai really that complex? Is Huayen worth studying for its influence on later schools?
>read the Indian
Aside from the basics of Madhyamaka and Yogacara (Nagarjuna, Aryadeva, Chandrakirti...) and of course the main sutras which I've already read, is there anything else? I'm not too interested in Tibetan buddhism right now

[Anonymous No.19940793]

>>19940710
>You can reinterpret Exodus all you like.
No reinterpretation necessary. It's plainly clear in the text - all with eyes to see can see.

>>19940715
>The part you quoted in no way refutes dependent origination
Can you give me any reason to believe that an actually existing infinite set is more logical to believe in than an uncaused cause? It is self-admitted by mathematicians that Hilbert's Hotel is one, among many, paradoxes which would arise if there were any actually infinite sets in reality. There are no such paradoxes with a prime mover.
>I don't think you understand what pratityasamutpada is.
Why should I believe in this doctrine, when it leads to ontological absurdity? Because some Indian dude told me it was the truth? There are other Indian dudes who say that there is a soul, and you have no problem discarding them.
>No, the uncaused cause is a shoddy argument.
Give me a logical refutation of one of the premises. Until then, this is pointless of you to even say.
>Taking the twelve links of dependent origination and adding a thirteenth one that is uncaused doesn't solve anything.
It's the only way to logically solve the problem of why things exist at all. Feel free to refute the actual argument.
>You will never be able to do this without getting people to accept your faith claims,
Which is why we are discussing reasons to believe in God before the reasons to believe Christianity.
>which can be dismissed without justification because they are faith claims.
If you can dismiss them without justification despite any and all positive evidence, then I too can dismiss Siddhartha's dude-trust-me metaphysics. Great, now we're in epistemological hell, where nothing is true, and you own beliefs are retarded and absurd.
>It's very easy to present your own arguments and refuse to take into account any opposing ones.
Except for the fact that I did not come into this seeking to prove Christianity true. I was a syncretic perennialism who leaned towards Eastern religion. The charge of bias makes no sense.

>>19940736
Yeah, that's why Buddhists evangelize all the time, right? It's easy to preach about compassion and enlightening the world when you are literally spending all day in a monastery sitting down. In all my life, I have literally never seen a Buddhist preacher or evangelist.
>>19940722
It doesn't have to be actual fire - many saints describe Hell as being the gaze of an infinite love to those who hate Him, or the pain of knowing that you will never see your Spouse. Fire is a good analogy. And, yes, if you are mentally sound and refused to open up to the Spirit, instead choosing to reject He who died for you to follow your own path, you are in danger of that separation.

>>19940752
>Source?
Necessitated by being pure actuality.
>some clueless dude who just didn't find the idea of resurrection very compelling
You are not "some clueless dude". You are a human with free will, and can choose whether you allow God to guide you into Truth.

[Anonymous No.19940794]

>>19937644
>Did Aquinas successfully refute perspectivism and relativism?.
How did he do that?

[Anonymous No.19940809]

>>19940793
>There are no such paradoxes with a prime mover.
If things need causes, where did the prime mover come from?
If it's uncaused, it means things don't need causes. So we don't need God to cause things, and thus dependent origination becomes the likeliest possibility.
>ontological absurdity
That would be the belief in an uncaused cause. But you're free to wiggle out of that, I'm sure you will.
> before the reasons to believe Christianity.
What are you gonna bring out? The Gospels as proof? I'll save you time and post this https://desuarchive.org/his/thread/12615096/#12615096
>I too can dismiss Siddhartha's dude-trust-me metaphysics.
Of course you can. He never told people to trust him on faith, unlike other preachers.

[Anonymous No.19940826]

>>19940793
>spending all day in a monastery sitting down
>let me assess the validity of another religion's practices by looking at it through the lens of my own religion
You are monumentally disingenuous.
>In all my life, I have literally
Didn't ask

[Anonymous No.19940827]

>>19940793
>Necessitated by being pure actuality.
Not an argument. Dude it's true because it's true lol
>and can choose whether you allow God to guide you into Truth.
I'd be more eager to follow Yahweh if his book and the resulting doctrines actually made a lick of sense
You're not gonna convince me and judging by your replies you're not gonna convince anyone else, you seem to be annoying everyone ITT.

[Anonymous No.19940836]

>>19940793
>you are in danger
Not convincing in the slightest. I guess I'm just not as suggestible to fear tactics as you. If God is actually infinitely good and not some petty cunt, he'll give me a second chance or prove the "truth" of christianity to me so I can acknowledge it, but he won't do that because [mental gymnastics] so there you have it.

[Anonymous No.19940846]

>>19940809
>>19940826
>>19940827
>>19940836
Why do you keep replying to a man who's obviously mentally ill, as demonstrated by the link you yourself posted?

[Anonymous No.19940866]

>>19940809
>If things need causes, where did the prime mover come from?
You have the argument wrong. It is not that "things need causes", it is that all created things have a cause. The principle of sufficient reason.
>That would be the belief in an uncaused cause.
I see you've stopped defending your position, and are resorting to mere assertions against mine.
>What are you gonna bring out?
If you disagree about God even existing, I'm not going to waste time talking about Christianity with you. Until you accept God, you will probably never accept Christianity.
>Of course you can.
Therefore you admit there is no legitimate reason to believe in the words of whatever arbitrarily chosen random Indian dude tickled your ears. At least you're honest.

>>19940826
No matter how much you cope, you can't escape the fact that Buddhists are barely present in evangelizing the world.
>>19940827
>Not an argument.
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/07/so-you-think-you-understand.html
>I'd be more eager to follow Yahweh if his book and the resulting doctrines actually made a lick of sense
What doesn't make sense to you?
>You're not gonna convince me and judging by your replies you're not gonna convince anyone else
I have received feedback from people I have helped come back to Christ and His Church before. Attempts to demoralize me are pretty much useless, and are really just an attempt to silence Logos.
>>19940836
>he'll give me a second chance
Your chance is now.
>or prove the "truth" of christianity to me so I can acknowledge it
All you have to do is open yourself up to be led by God. Consciously make the honest prayer, in the morning and in bed, "God, if you exist, show me the way to You. I do not care about my preconceived notions, I just want to be led into the Truth. If you are real, please guide me to You".
If you do this, I guarantee you will go on a journey. If not, there is nobody to blame but yourself. you have free will.

[Anonymous No.19940868]

I think Christianity essentially appeals to the person who thinks there is something to be achieved in this world, while eastern spirituality appeals to the acosmist and the subjective idealists. Would explain how neither side is capable of making the other even start considering their respective truth.

[Anonymous No.19940882]

>>19940866
I see you're starting to lose your patience because people just don't buy your pilpul.
>all created things have a cause.
Nice copout. Putting the word "created" before your argument doesn't magically make the issue disappear. You haven't addressed what I said.
>I'm not going to waste time
You should go all the way and stop wasting time altogether by preaching on an anime imageboard.
By the way, I had a god phase, a genuine one, that lasted a long time. I never needed complex logical arguments against his existence; in the face of my sincere faith, his silence was enough.
>you admit
Have you read the skeptics, of which the Buddhists are the eastern equivalents?

[Anonymous No.19940908]

>>19940882
>Putting the word "created" before your argument doesn't magically make the issue disappear
The "issue" only arose because you fundamentally misunderstand the cosmological argument. Once that issue is corrected, and you properly formulate the argument, your issue does not arise - you would be attacking a strawman.
>You should go all the way and stop [...] preaching
Probably not. There is too much at stake for me not to at least try.
>By the way, I had a god phase, a genuine one, that lasted a long time.
If you nurtured your faith by progressing in both theosis and rationality, you wouldn't have lost it.
>you admit
Why the refusal to answer the question? Is there, or is there not, any legitimate reason to believe in the doctrines of whichever arbitrarily chosen Indian man you chose as your teacher, over another Indian man who contradicts him? If there is, please share it.

[Anonymous No.19940911]

>>19940866
>Your chance is now.
Yeah so he's an asshole.
>open yourself up
What makes you think I haven't? oooh right if this doesn't lead to me believing in your specific narrative then it means I wasn't doing it in earnest or whatever. You're smug and prideful and try to present yourself as le epic and rational christian apologist but you're like every other larper on this board

[Anonymous No.19940912]

>>19940866
>edwardfeser
Posting links is not an argument. If you're incapable of formulating an argument in your own words, just say so
>What doesn't make sense
None of it makes sense, it's endlessly pointed out in every thread about Christianity, it's never answered, you won't answer it either, you'll just cope and that'll be the end of it like every single time this subject is brought up
In a few words: it's all laughably arbitrary and primitive, not a hint of "logos" in there, just the superstitions of desert tribes
>I have received feedback
Cool. You're not on a sacred mission, I'm not "attempting to silence you", you're not in a movie, get real.

[Anonymous No.19940937]

>>19940911
>Yeah so he's an asshole.
For giving you the opportunity to choose Good or evil?
>What makes you think I haven't?
It's not a one-time act. You do it constantly. Every day, every night. If you are doing this, honestly and sincerely, without excluding any potential possibilities based on preconceived notions, I have no issue with you. You would be a seeker. I respect and love seekers.
>>19940912
>If you're incapable of formulating an argument in your own words, just say so
I thought you would already be familiar with the basic argument, and so gave some intermediate-level information for further research (if you are interested). In case you are a beginner:
The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause. In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or only one. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.
>None of it makes sense, it's endlessly pointed out in every thread about Christianity, it's never answered, you won't answer it either,
I'm not a mind-reader. Tell me what you think doesn't make any sense, and I will explain it to you. If you don't want to tell me, don't bother bringing it up.
>Cool. You're not on a sacred mission,
Speak for yourself.
"Jesus said to them, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent Me, so also I am sending you.” (John 20:21)

[Anonymous No.19940944]

>>19937676
BASED

[Anonymous No.19940950]

>>19940908
>you fundamentally misunderstand
Nope.
There's empirical evidence that particles can appear and disappear without anything acting upon them. Modern theories on the beginning of the universe go against the first mover argument. But you're not a physicalist and neither am I so you won't find this compelling.
Either way, there is no issue. You say my argument doesn't apply to God because he is uncreated. If uncreated things can exist, then nothing stops the universe itself from being uncreated, or rather, the process of creation (twelve links, or another form of recursion) from being uncreated. You have no way out of this.
Furthermore, just because the parts of a system need to be created does not imply the system itself needs to be created, you are inferring a whole from parts which is fallacious.
There are many more arguments that could be formulated against theism but I'm not interested in talking about all of them. This is simply to show you that your position isn't a "proof" in the sense that it demonstrates nothing.
>If you nurtured your faith
Sure thing, I did it wrong. This guy >>19940911 is right: if it doesn't fit your narrative, then obviously that means the other guy is wrong, surely this couldn't mean you are mistaken.
>Is there, or is there not, any legitimate reason
Yes, it's called sotapanna.

[Anonymous No.19940951]

>>19940791
Well Tendai (and Shingon) are both picking up on developments in later Indian thought than earlier Buddhism, so stuff like tantra and mantra become important, sutras get esoteric and exoteric readings, etc. Not too far from Tibetan Vajrayana in that regard. Huayen is important to the genealogy of Chan and Zen, you can read Cleary's volume on it if you don't want to read the entire Avatamsaka (he includes excerpts of that and of some Chinese patriarchs). Nagarjuna/Aryadeva/Chandrakirti are not Yogacarins btw.

[Anonymous No.19940960]

>>19940937
>For giving you the opportunity
How disingenuous and hypocritical kek
If he really was omnipotent and loving he wouldn't have placed me in this position, or at the very least he would've revealed himself without a shred of doubt so I could know the truth

[Anonymous No.19940972]

>>19940951
>Nagarjuna/Aryadeva/Chandrakirti are not Yogacarins btw.
I know
Who are the most important writers for Yogacara though?

[Anonymous No.19940982]

>>19937873
Long post but it contains no arguments. "X dude refuted this .... Daddy Aquinas believed Y so it must be true."

[Anonymous No.19940985]

>>19940809
>https://desuarchive.org/his/thread/12615096/#12615096
Holy fuck that's embarrassing. No wonder he doesn't address it

[Anonymous No.19940997]

>>19937644
Looking at the modern church, it doesn't seem to be the case

[Anonymous No.19940998]

>>19940937
>The second way is [...]
What the fuck? How is this a proof of anything? It's just theoretical musings that boil down to "well there has to be a first cause because otherwise there can't be a first cause"
You base your worldview on this shit? Fuck off, I'm wasting my time talking to you

[Anonymous No.19941004]

>>19938021
>Aristotle can be considered a proto-Christian.
Lol how? I feel like this is getting the causaluty wrong. Aristotle wasn't proto-christian. Rather Christianity absorbed Aristotle's thought and incorporated it. So it's hardly surprising that after the fact they look back and say he was a proto-christian.

[Anonymous No.19941013]

>>19940985
This epistemological weight autism could be averted if he actually bothered studying epistemology, that is, reading Sextus, Hume, Montaigne, and so on, and realizing that his beliefs are based on literally nothing as shown in that pic >>19940545
Of course skepticism isn't as fashionable as larping as a soldier of christ so he'll never do that.

[Anonymous No.19941016]

>>19940793
>It's plainly clear in the text - all with eyes to see can see.
Apparently not. Reciting a dogma you cannot explain is hardly something to be conceited over.

[Anonymous No.19941034]

I don't get how people can be so sure of their metaphysical beliefs, nothing indicates your a priori reasoning let alone your empirical perception lets you grasp the truth, for all you know the truth could be absolutely unimaginable and completely different from every single doctrine, dogma or philosophy known to man. To pretend we have all the data and can somehow figure out the truth, especially with things like logical arguments in a vacuum, is incredibly presumptuous imo

[Anonymous No.19941036]

>>19940607
>Except the existence of an actual series of infinite events in reality is completely illogical.
Wrong
>See Hilbert's paradox of the grand hotel.
No paradox, it is a thought experiment that ilustrates why most people don't understand infinity. You are another example
>The only logical option is an uncaused cause.
lmao

[Anonymous No.19941044]

>>19940666
>anti-Christian post gets 666 trips right when it rejects Christ
uhhhh... atheistbros???

[Anonymous No.19941048]

>>19940950
>There's empirical evidence that particles can appear and disappear without anything acting upon them.
Show me evidence of a particle spontaneously appearing with no cause.
>Modern theories on the beginning of the universe go against the first mover argument.
Accepted theories on the beginning of the universe, namely the Big Bang, support the first mover argument by supporting the premise that the universe had a cause.
>If uncreated things can exist, then nothing stops the universe itself from being uncreated
The fact that we know the universe had a cause through scientific observation stops us from believing that the universe does not have a cause.
>This is simply to show you that your position isn't a "proof" in the sense that it demonstrates nothing.
The cosmlogical argument is a "proof" in the techinical sense of the word. It is logically sound if the premises hold, and you have to attack the premises to defeat the conclusion. So far, I have not seen that - only the most basic objection that every theist has already encountered and rebutted. If your argument against the premise is rebutted, the conclusion stands, until you can find a rebutting defeater.
>Yes, it's called sotapanna.
Referencing a Sanskrit word is not an argument. Use your words, in your language. Is there any reason to believe in the Indian man you chose, instead of the similarly mystical Indian man who completely contradicts him?

>>19940960
>If he really was omnipotent and loving he wouldn't have placed me in this position,
... The position of existing?
>or at the very least he would've revealed himself without a shred of doubt so I could know the truth
He will do so if you ask. If you don't ask, you won't received. I already said this. If you are a seeker, you will find. If you do not seek, how can you find?
>>19940998
It is a syllogistic argument. You really can't parse it? He makes clear premises, then outlines the conclusion which necessarily follows.
>>19941016
Not an argument. Exodus 3:14 clearly states that God is Being - which is exactly what we say to this day. He is That which Is.

>>19941036
>Wrong
You have to refute the argument, not just assert against it.
>No paradox, it is a thought experiment that ilustrates why most people don't understand infinity
You don't even get the argument. There is no problem with abstract concept of infinities, there is an ontological problem with the idea that infinite sets could exist in reality.
>lmao
Not an argument.

[Anonymous No.19941050]

>>19940868
Christers are obsessed with renimating corpses and having a miraculous afterlife. That's a complete devaluation of this world and living in it.

[Anonymous No.19941054]

>>19941048
>we know the universe had a cause through scientific observation
So you don't know anything about modern cosmological theories and you keep dodging my refutation. Nice talking to you (not really)

[Anonymous No.19941055]

>>19940866
>all created things have a cause
>created
No such thing exists

[Anonymous No.19941059]

>>19941055
Based. Sunyatachads ww@?

[Anonymous No.19941063]

>>19941054
Did the universe exist before the Big Bang?
>>19941055
>No such thing exists
To make it more palatable to you, you can say "everything that begins to exist has a cause". If you deny that a painter can create a painting, a mother and father a child, or an author a manuscript, you might want to reassess your metaphysics.

[Anonymous No.19941065]

>>19941048
>there is an ontological problem with the idea that infinite sets could exist in reality
No, you can't get it and therefore assume it is not possible
>Not an argument.
Not my problem

[Anonymous No.19941066]

>>19941048
>... The position of existing?
In these conditions, yeah
>He will do so if you ask
I asked, he did jack shit. Fuck you, fuck your jewish volcano demon, and fuck the retards who keep peddling this intellectual cancer.

[Anonymous No.19941067]

>>19940589
It's because Christians are instructed bu their messiah to spread the "good news" throughout the world. And so it's always had a very evangelizing impulse to it. It's why Christians in general are really fucking annoying.

[Anonymous No.19941077]

>>19940972
Asanga and Vasubandhu are the major ones, mostly anyone after is just commenting on them or on other commentators on them.

[Anonymous No.19941085]

>>19941048
You want to believe, like every other human being. And like most human beings, you pretend really hard that your baseless beliefs are in fact based on some objective truth. Many such cases. Refer to >>19941013

[Anonymous No.19941094]

>>19941063
We can construct acausal mathematical models of cosmology, where effects (1) happen without causes or (2) precede causes. Causation is not a logical necessity in cosmology. Before trying to argue about metaphysics, maybe you should brush up on actual physics, which you are painfully ignorant of.

[Anonymous No.19941095]

>>19941065
So theoretically, a hotel could exist in reality which is completely full, but can accept an infinite amount of new tenants just by shuffling people around? This sound like something which is logically possible in our universe, to you?
>>19941066
>I asked, he did jack shit.
You don't just ask once and expect Him to appear before you like a dancing monkey. You keep asking, and you humble yourself, asking to be led into Truth. If you stop asking, you won't receive. If you stop seeking, you won't find. You have free-will - the choice is yours.

>>19941085
I had no reason to prefer Christianity over any other religion, especially considering I was fornicating and partying all the time. You are acting as if bias had some effect in skewing my perception, but in reality, there is no reason to believe that charge. I believe because it is the most likely thing to be true. If you can't accept that, keep reading random Indian guys or their students, with literally no reason to support why one should believe them. Sin darkens the intellect. Trust me, I know.

[Anonymous No.19941102]

>>19941094
You can construct any number of mathematical systems, that doesn't mean they are reflected in objective reality. Show me a single example of something which begins to exist, but does not take its being from some cause. I'll wait.

[Anonymous No.19941106]

>>19941102
>Show me a single example of something which begins to exist, but does not take its being from some cause.
The universe

[Anonymous No.19941111]

>>19941106
>that that is can come from that that is not
Nothing comes from nothing. How can a thing that does not exist cause anything. This is what atheism does to your mind.

[Anonymous No.19941113]

>>19941095
>If you can't accept that
Your smug conceit is so laughable considering the incoherence of your beliefs.
Sin doesn't exist. Trust me, I know.

[Anonymous No.19941114]

>>19941095
>You don't just ask once
Indeed I don't, keep making assumptions about me because it fits your narrative you brainwashed loser

[Anonymous No.19941120]

>>19941111
Not what I said, brainlet. Theists are really fucking dumb. Stop posting selfies and see >>19940950, all the arguments (which you don't want to address because you can't) are there.

[Anonymous No.19941124]

>>19941113
>Sin doesn't exist. Trust me, I know.
I hope that for your sake, you learn how wrong you are while still alive.
>>19941114
Like I said, if you are asking God to lead you into all truth constantly, every day and every night, I have no quarrel with you. If you are doing this, honestly and sincerely, without excluding any potential possibilities based on preconceived notions, you would be a seeker. I respect and love seekers. All seekers shall find what they seek.

[Anonymous No.19941128]

>>19941102
Show me a single example of a material something which begins to exist, but does not take its material being from something material.
Sorry I broke your kalam lil guy

[Anonymous No.19941129]

>>19941124
>I hope that for your sake
Oooo spooky. Is daddy yahweh gonna spank me for not being a good goy? Dumb fuck

[Anonymous No.19941135]

>>19940827
Dude I agree with you but why waste your time? This is like arguing with the Jehiva Witnesses that come door to door. There's no point.

[Anonymous No.19941136]

>>19941124
>All seekers shall find what they seek.
Except if it's not Christianity, then that means they haven't sought enough :^)

[Anonymous No.19941137]

>>19941048
>Show me evidence of a particle spontaneously appearing with no cause.
>what is a quantum fluctuation

>Accepted theories on the beginning of the universe, namely the Big Bang
The Big Bang is an extrapolation of general relativity to a heavily dense early state of the universe, where quantum effects "overrule" general relativity. Then the relativistic predictions of a beginning can be discarded as GR fails in such a state.
>the universe had a cause through scientific observation
Not true, see above

[Anonymous No.19941142]

>>19941048
>Exodus 3:14 clearly states that God is Being
Why is only this god being and not the others? He certainly doesn't behave like the god who is being of Platonic theology. He behaves like a tribal war god, with his petty preferences, boons, and punishments allotted to the people he governs. Have you considered that he is lying? There is pretty decent evidence that he is—see how betrayed the people of the old covenant were, left bereft of kingship with their holy places allowed to suffer destruction. He is overselling you at best.

[Anonymous No.19941144]

>>19941135
The dude gets consistently blown the fuck out in every single thread in which he starts his smug posturing, it's uncanny really. Him and guenonfag deserve respect if only because of how incredibly oblivious they are to the sheer incoherence of their positions, yet the enthusiasm with which they continue to act as if they were messengers of truth.

[Anonymous No.19941148]

>>19941106
Wrong

[Anonymous No.19941154]

Ok but is anyone ITT going to refute the first mover argument?

[Anonymous No.19941158]

>>19941144
It's a waste of good suffering to leave him be

[Anonymous No.19941163]

>>19941158
>the thomistranny thread
>you opened it, we came

[Anonymous No.19941165]

>>19941154
>everything has a cause
>oh except.... this cause right here... nope nothing before that because, uh, umm, well anyway as I was saying everything has a cause and that cause is God

[Anonymous No.19941168]

>>19941063
The painting, the baby, etc are not created out of nothing. Is it too hard?

[Anonymous No.19941171]

>>19941165
>>everything has a cause
>>19940866

[Anonymous No.19941174]

>>19941063
>Did the universe exist before the Big Bang
The Big Bang is a model, not reality. It cannot predict what happened beyond a certain time, because GR doesn't hold

[Anonymous No.19941178]

>>19941163
Tell me about Aquinas. Why does he wear the kippah

[Anonymous No.19941180]

>he gave up
Epistemological tard utterly destroyed yet again. Until next time.

[Anonymous No.19941182]

>>19941095
>So theoretically, a hotel could exist in reality which is completely full, but can accept an infinite amount of new tenants just by shuffling people around
>what is a thought experiment

[Anonymous No.19941185]

>>19941171
>oh i mean only created things have a cause
>and that cause is their creator
>and since everything was created by God, God is the cause of all things
that wasn't very smooth of you to make your conclusion one of the proofs

[Anonymous No.19941187]

>>19941171
See >>19941055

[Anonymous No.19941190]

>>19941120
I already answered those "arguments", and you didn't even respond. Why appeal to them again? >>19941048

>>19941128
All matter comes from the first cause (unless you arbitrarily believe in infinite regression despite its ontological impossibility). Of created things causing other created things, your statement would be correct.

>>19941129
You might receive eternal deprivation from the Good if you continue to despise and reject His beloved Son, yes.

>>19941136
If you stop seeking, then how can you find? If you are still seeking, we have no quarrel.

>>19941137
>what is a quantum fluctuation
A quantum field is nothing?
>Then the relativistic predictions of a beginning can be discarded as GR fails in such a state.
Was there a universe before the Big Bang?

>>19941142
>Why is only this god being and not the others
Do you have any evidence for those other gods?
>He certainly doesn't behave like the god who is being of Platonic theology.
How do you know how that God would behave?
>He behaves like a tribal war god, with his petty preferences, boons, and punishments allotted to the people he governs
How is it petty to justly punish those who do evil, and reward those who do good?
>see how betrayed the people of the old covenant were, left bereft of kingship with their holy places allowed to suffer destruction
I don't understand how the Israelites breaking a covenant, and then having the privileges of that covenant being revoked because it was broken, is evidence that God is a liar?

>>19941174
Do most physicists believe that the Big Bang model is the best explanation for why the universe exists in its present form (eg. what caused it)?

>>19941182
The thought experiment demonstrates the ontological impossibility of infinite sets existing in reality.

[Anonymous No.19941194]

>>19941190
>I already answered those "arguments"
You never did. I accept your concession.

[Anonymous No.19941202]

>>19941190
>If you stop seeking, then how can you find?
>if you find christianity then that's cool, otherwise that means you're not done seeking :^)
I am incapable of taking you seriously. You are a living caricature

[Anonymous No.19941205]

What we haven't talked about is the nihilist to egalitarian pipeline. Why is there no moral diversity within the ranks of the gay bald man worshippers? Is it really just
>nothing is true except my penis tingling so let's do that more and without shame
>truth is a function of power so you should listen to people I say don't have power because that's moral but also morality is fake and truth claims are expressions of power seeking

[Anonymous No.19941207]

>>19941190
I don't despise Jesus, he was an alright dude. His followers though? Absolute fucking faggots. Case in point with you.

[Anonymous No.19941218]

>>19941190
>One of the common misconceptions about the Big Bang model is that it fully explains the origin of the universe. However, the Big Bang model does not describe how energy, time, and space were caused, but rather it describes the emergence of the present universe from an ultra-dense and high-temperature initial state.
lol dumbass

[Anonymous No.19941239]

>>19941190
People are repeatedly refuting your points, and you are repeatedly plugging your ears while keeping up the holier than thou act. This isn't a debate, it's just you making a fool of yourself. Of course you'll never be refuted if you never engage with the people who refute you, but that's a poor way to seek truth. Be more humble.

[Anonymous No.19941260]

>>19941190
>Do you have any evidence for those other gods?
You have none for yours. Your atheism towards other gods imperils your whole theology and has stalked it since the Romans correctly recognized it as such. This is why many people today, no longer under the rule of state churches, are able to shrug off Christianity, having already learned that all gods were false except one, who lacks any proof himself. It's not even a leap, it is the inescapable conclusion. All of the in between positions are merely the bad faith of christers who feel uncomfortable with being an atheist but want to try to prove, if only to themselves, that god could exist for such and such a reason, even though there is never any way to validate this. There was once a very different view, it was that the world was full of spirit and gods, and whether these were 'real' or not they were part of the ritual and social lives of most peoples and there was little interest in proving who was the true god and who was false. Philosophers and writers did think about these questions but for the average person there were ancestors and household gods and clan gods and so forth. The revolution instigated by monotheism is what begins the road to genuine widespread atheism. If there be no proof for a Zeus, how much less there will be for a Yahweh

[Anonymous No.19941274]

>>19941260
B-but the gospels bro

[Anonymous No.19941284]

>>19941274
What about the Odyssey? Since Troy was a real place according to most archaelogists, the whole story must be historical and true.

[Anonymous No.19941285]

>>19941194
>You never did
See >>19941048

>>19941202
Only you know if you're actually seeking or not.

>>19941207
"Whoever listens to you listens to Me; whoever rejects you rejects Me; and whoever rejects Me rejects the One who sent Me.” (Luke 10:16)
If you reject His followers, you reject Him.

>>19941218
>doesn't answer the question
How do you expect to be able to engage in dialogue if you ignore what I'm saying? I know that the Big Bang is an expansion of a singularity. Read what I said again.

>>19941239
>People are repeatedly refuting your points
I'm currently engaging with everybody who started a dialogue with me. For most of them, the "dialogues" have devolved into petty name-calling and ad hominem attacks. Saying that people are "repeatedly refuting" me without making an argument is a waste of time.

>>19941260
>You have none for yours.
I do, actually.
>Your atheism towards other gods imperils your whole theology
Not at all, and I don't deny that those "other gods [sic]" exist, only that they are lesser spirits themselves created by things that were created.
>all gods were false except one, who lacks any proof himself.
There is plenty of proof for God, both logical and historical.
> merely the bad faith of christers who feel uncomfortable with being an atheist
That is a strawman argument, obviously.
>There was once a very different view, it was that the world was full of spirit and gods
Christians hold the same belief, but correctly recognize that it is retarded to worship lower principalities and "divinities" because they are not the One.
>whether these were 'real' or not they were part of the ritual and social lives of most peoples and there was little interest in proving who was the true god and who was false.
eg. a bunch of people believed in fake man-made "gods" with no evidence. This is supposed to be a compelling thing to return to?
>If there be no proof for a Zeus, how much less there will be for a Yahweh
Completely illogical argument. By the Greek's own admission, Zeus is literally the child of a "lesser divinity" who himself is created. To compare Him to the true God is completely laughable.

[Anonymous No.19941294]

>>19941285
>I don't deny that those "other gods [sic]" exist, only that they are lesser spirits themselves created by things that were created.
Well that was unexpected. A non-christian thomist.

[Anonymous No.19941298]

>>19941294
You have no idea what you're talking about, sadly. The idea is present throughout all of Christian theological history - the gods of the gentiles are demons, or if they're lucky, angels. These are infinitely lower than the One. It is retarded to worship them.

[Anonymous No.19941302]

>>19941285
>Zeus is literally the child of a "lesser divinity" who himself is created. To compare Him to the true God is completely laughable.
You haven't established that the tribal war god of Israel is the One of platonic theology

[Anonymous No.19941306]

>>19941285
>See >>19941048
Nope. Refutations to the first mover argument were posted several times ITT and you've never engaged with them, you keep strawmanning and pretending you're right, it's all you know how to do because deep down you know you have no leg to stand on. Keep coping I guess.

[Anonymous No.19941313]

>>19941285
>I'm currently engaging with everybody who started a dialogue with me
You're not engaging, you're disregarding refutations of your arguments while saying that nobody can refute you. You are behaving like a child and are making a mockery of your faith by acting like this.

[Anonymous No.19941316]

>>19941285
>If you reject His followers, you reject Him.
Of course I reject him (as in: I don't believe in the zombie jew theory). You said I despised him though, which isn't true.

[Anonymous No.19941329]

>>19941285
The big bang model in its current interpretation by modern cosmological theories does not support the first mover hypothesis
A simple google search would have told you this

[Anonymous No.19941330]

>>19941260
>...The revolutionaries were fierce destroyers; Comte does not even care to establish that God does not exist. One does not prove the existence or non-existence of a being. One acknowledges its presence or its absence: just like Minerva and Apollo, God departed without leaving behind any questions...No one has ever logically demonstrated the non-existence of Apollo, Minerva, and the rest, or of the fairies of Eastern tales, or of the various creations of poetry. But none the less the human mind irrevocably abandoned ancient dogmas when they at length ceased to be in keeping with the mental situation as a whole

[Anonymous No.19941332]

>>19941298
This is just discount platonic theology. You haven't proven the war god of Israel is the One and are just keeping the mosaic distinction in place that everyone else is false, i.e. demonic, which is a word also learned from the Greeks but changed from being neutral to evil. What the Greeks called a daemon, involuting christers call an angel, and what was a god to a Gentile becomes an evil demon at odds with Yahweh to a christer.

[Anonymous No.19941336]

>>19941285

>>19941165
>>19941168
>>19941185
>>19941187

[Anonymous No.19941347]

>>19941336
What is this, a CYOA post? Ok fine, go to >>19940674 and then >>19940666

[Anonymous No.19941351]

>>19941347
You misunderstand, the epistemology autist is saying he already refuted the arguments against the prime mover so I'm pointing him towards the posts which he's conveniently avoided providing an actual answer to

[Anonymous No.19941352]

ITT: seething thomists who can't get over the fact that their 'philosophical proofs' are little more than hot garbage copes

[Anonymous No.19941357]

>>19941352
>'philosophical proofs' are little more than hot garbage copes
This is true in general.

[Anonymous No.19941359]

>>19941302
He Himself says that He is Being itself. He goes on to prove that He is who He says He is through prophesying things which do come true (eg. Daniel and the prophecy of Seventy Weeks), finally proving the truth of His words by the ultimate miracle, which is Jesus Christ prophesying His own resurrection from the dead (which is the most likely explanation for the circumstances surrounding His crucifixion - see N.T. Wright's The Resurrection of the Son of God). Thus, Christ is what legitimizes the claims of the God of Israel.

>>19941306
>Nope.
You posted your arguments here >>19940950. I rebutted your arguments here >>19941048. You did not respond to any of the rebuttals. Thus, I have not been refuted. Welcome to Debate 101.

>>19941313
>you're disregarding refutations of your arguments while saying that nobody can refute you
Show me an example where I disregarded a refutation of my argument. I'll wait.

>>19941316
If you reject Him, you are an anti-Christ. If you're cool with that, that's on you.

>>19941329
I know that that is the claim. I have engaged with this argument many times. The problem is that as Hilbert's Hotel, among other thought experiments, shows, some mathematical abstractions are ontologically and metaphysically absurd in reality. That there can be no instantiation of an actual infinite series in reality proves that to hold the eternality of the universe is absurd - and the only alternative to that absurd hypothesis is that there is a first cause who terminates the chain of causation.

>>19941332
See above. Worshipping lesser beings instead of the One who created Everything is literally retarded, the "mosaic distinction" is just simple logic.

>>19941336
None of those are responding to my posts, except for >>19941168, which is completely misunderstanding my point, and does not come close to refuting the principle of sufficient reason.

[Anonymous No.19941361]

>>19941351
Ok but that was retroactively refuted by having eyes to see.

[Anonymous No.19941363]

ITT: "christer" guy samefagging

[Anonymous No.19941369]

>>19941359
>I rebutted your arguments here
No, you didn't address all of them. See >>19941336, which you are still avoiding because you know they destroy your entire worldview. Either respond to the refutations or shut the fuck up but stop acting like you've won an argument that you're refusing to engage in in the first place.
No need to respond to this post if you're just going to keep coping, don't make me waste my time. Peace

[Anonymous No.19941374]

>>19937644
>Did Aquinas successfully refute perspectivism and relativism?.
Yes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KPm4N7GewTQ

[Anonymous No.19941375]

>>19941359
>the most likely explanation for the circumstances surrounding His crucifixion

[Anonymous No.19941377]

>>19941357
Generally proofs are at the very least useful, whereas with Thomism, is just pure cope for not being able to accept that any of these 'proofs' could just as easily be used to defend the shahada

[Anonymous No.19941381]

>>19941369
The only response that are responses towards me was the following intellectually heavyweight:
"The painting, the baby, etc are not created out of nothing. Is it too hard?"
Is this the "argument" that you think I'm avoiding? Can you explain how this ESL statement refutes the principle of sufficient reason?

[Anonymous No.19941385]

>>19941359
>Hilbert's Hotel,
And you have been also shown ITT that you don't understand what the HH thought experiment entails
>there can be no instantiation of an actual infinite series
This has never been demonstrated
>the eternality of the universe is absurd
And yet it's a popular view among physicists which are way smarter than you'll ever be

[Anonymous No.19941386]

>>19941359
>If you reject Him, you are [spooky term that only makes sense if you accept my religion]
Cool whatever, can you stop being a faggot now?

[Anonymous No.19941388]

>>19941375
>jesus' followers all lied about their teacher rising from the dead to obtain for themselves the rewards of brutal torture and death, so that they speedily could be punished in hell for all eternity by their god for lying

[Anonymous No.19941393]

>>19941381
>things aren't created out of nothing, they're dependent on one another
>the first cause argument makes no sense because it begs the question (special pleading)
>saying that "only created things are a cause" (which you said was a counter-argument to my own argument) is stupid because it assumes your conclusion from the premise
>you cannot prove that anything is created

[Anonymous No.19941400]

>>19941388
See this https://desuarchive.org/his/thread/12615096/#12615096

[Anonymous No.19941401]

>>19941385
>And you have been also shown ITT that you don't understand what the HH thought experiment entails
Please point it out - all I see are people not understanding the difference between a mathematical abstract reality, and that some things are ontologically impossible to actually instantiate in objective reality.
>This has never been demonstrated
Literally Hilbert's Hotel.
>And yet it's a popular view among physicists which are way smarter than you'll ever be
The view of the Platonic One is a popular view among mathematicians, who are way smarter than you or the physicists will ever be

[Anonymous No.19941409]

>>19941401
>all I see are people not understanding
Right, when people refute your arguments they're "not understanding"
>The view of the Platonic One is a popular view
Mathematical platonism is not an unanimous stance in the mathematical community by any means and you are a fucking retard for thinking so

[Anonymous No.19941410]

>>19941388
Yes, they did. They were brainwashed retards, just like you

[Anonymous No.19941414]

>>19941377
But if things exist then who created things? Therefore, magical jew.

[Anonymous No.19941423]

>>19941190
>All matter comes from the first cause (unless you arbitrarily believe in infinite regression despite its ontological impossibility)
Literally a nonsequitur AND still doesn't change anything because the first cause needs to be material as per the material kalam AND god isn't capable of acting as a cause because omnipotent beings are not in a causal relations with the things they do but one of logical necessity.

[Anonymous No.19941424]

>>19941393
Is this supposed to be an argument?
>things aren't created out of nothing, they're dependent on one another
Created things are created, yes.
>>the first cause argument makes no sense because it begs the question (special pleading)
There is no such thing as a "first cause argument". There are several arguments for God's existence, and right now, we are discussing the cosmological argument.
>saying that "only created things are a cause" (which you said was a counter-argument to my own argument)
I never said "only created things are a cause"?
>you cannot prove that anything is created
So a child never comes into existence when a man impregnates a woman, and a carpenter cannot build a bench?
>>19941409
>Right, when people refute your arguments they're "not understanding"
There has been no refutation, link me to it. It just people thinking that I'm saying "infinity can't exist", when I'm saying that "infinity cannot be instantiated in material reality without holding absurd and ontologically impossible conclusions".
>Mathematical platonism is not an unanimous stance in the mathematical community by any means
And neither is the eternality of the universe, but you still appealed to that authority.
Any other copes?

[Anonymous No.19941425]

The most obviously pernicious aspect of christianity is that it is designed so that refutations become arguments in favor of it in the minds of its delusional followers. It is useless to debate with christians.

[Anonymous No.19941426]

>>19941388
buster_lies_on_the_internet.jpeg

[Anonymous No.19941434]

>>19941410
>they lied so that they could be brutally executed in a humiliating way to gain the reward of burning in hell for all eternity for lying and leading their nation astray
Checkmate Christers

[Anonymous No.19941439]

>>19941424
>Created things are created
Nothing is created by a single thing, dumb fuck.
>There is no such thing
You know exactly what I'm talking about, so I'll accept your concession on this one.
>I never said
Typo on my part but you understand exactly what I meant and are being disingenuous. You said
>It is not that "things need causes", it is that all created things have a cause.
>So a child [...]
Many factors come into play for a child to be born. Man and woman are not discrete mathematical units that "create" a child.

[Anonymous No.19941441]

>>19941388
Some of jesus' followers experienced post-bereavement allucinations and that coupled with A) widespread superstition and B) cognitive dissonance which would have followed from their apocalyptic prophet dying so soon resulted in many believing that the guy akshually came back from the dead.

[Anonymous No.19941446]

>>19941434
Funny how the epistemological weight faggot will always act as if >>19941400 doesn't exist since he gets so thoroughly btfo in that thread.

[Anonymous No.19941451]

>251 posts
>nobody has proven the existence of god yet
I'm still waiting

[Anonymous No.19941457]

>>19941451
You don't understand, God's existence can be proven but you need to be an expert in a specific subset of philosophy which requires years of effort and resources and even then it's not guaranteed that you TRULY TM understand the arguments. This is a decent criteria for choosing who goes to heaven and doesn't. Wait, I forgot, if you see Jeebus in a toast and convert, that's also fine.

[Anonymous No.19941460]

>>19941434
The followers of Heaven's Gate didn't even need anyone to kill them, they killed themselves. That must make their beliefs even more true.

Oh no wait, they were also brainwashed retards, just like you

[Anonymous No.19941470]

>>19941457
No but I mean seriously. How does the "things have causes therefore god" thing make sense? Even if you say there needs to be an uncaused cause why can't the universe itself be the uncaused cause? But I don't see why there needs to be one anyway. How is it impossible for infinite things to exist? I don't understand how it's an argument, am I a brainlet for not getting it? 2000 years of philosophy were built upon this, surely there's something to it (no I'm not being ironic)

[Anonymous No.19941485]

>>19941423
>the first cause needs to be material
That is complete nonsense, the first cause needs to be pure actuality and can't, by definition, be material (the material universe didn't exist yet)
>God isn't capable of acting as a cause because omnipotent beings are not in a causal relations with the things they do
That is quite an assertion. Can you back it up with an argument?

>>19941439
>Nothing is created by a single thing, dumb fuck.
Unless you want to believe in the ontologically impossible infinite regression, then yes, by necessity, all things have to be created by one thing as their first cause.
>I'll accept your concession on this one.
You didn't even point to which premise you were trying to rebut - what am I conceding?
>you understand exactly what I meant and are being disingenuous
No, I didn't, because that is a complete misrepresentation of my position. I resent your characterization.
>Man and woman are not discrete mathematical units that "create" a child.
So a carpenter cannot create a bench? A man impregnating a woman cannot create a human? I don't think this is the hill to die on.

>>19941441
If only some of Jesus' followers believed He rose from the dead, how did they convince the others that He actually appeared to them over an extended period of time, ate and drank with them, taught them, and then physically ascended into heaven in their sign - to the point that those they convinced were so sure they had seen those things, that they consented to a creed (Corinthian Creed), and were willing to be tortured and killed for that belief? Genuinely curious to hear how you explain this.

>>19941446
I wasn't even in that thread. It seems that I live in your head rent-free.

>>19941460
>doesn't understand the difference between being an eyewitness and dying for that testimony, and believing in something because somebody told you
How many threads do we have to do this in before you wrap your head around what's actually being said?

[Anonymous No.19941486]

>>19941470
>How does the "things have causes therefore god" thing make sense?
It doesn't. Christians on here, especially christians who talk as if they're really knowledgeable on this stuff, never read atheistis philosophers of religion, and barely read theistic philosphers of religion who strongly disagree with their favorite arguments. Having a single necessary thing that is natural and is the source of all natural things has all the desiderata and none of the problems of unembodied tri-omni minds.

[Anonymous No.19941495]

>>19941470
If you want to understand the cosmological argument in a way deeper than what is being discussed in this thread, I suggest reading http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/07/so-you-think-you-understand.html .

Even if you don't agree with the argument, it will be helpful in understanding the more nuanced aspects of it.

[Anonymous No.19941498]

>>19941485
>ontologically impossible infinite regression
Not impossible.
>that is a complete misrepresentation
Address the argument or shut the fuck up
>So a carpenter [...]
Another strawman where you pretend not to understand.
Well, this is it. Concession accepted, no argument in sight.

[Anonymous No.19941503]

>>19941486
>thing that is natural and is the source of all natural things

[Anonymous No.19941505]

>>19941485
>I wasn't even in that thread.
Sure thing buddy.

>how did they convince
>dying for that testimony
>tortured and killed
Source for these claims?
The only sources for the alleged torture and death of the disciples, the resurrection, and all of the other bullshit, is contained in the gospels.

[Anonymous No.19941521]

>>19941485
I'm going throw my hat in the ring here. We know Mark is the oldest of the Synoptic Gospels, written around 66 - 74 CE. According to Mark 16, Mary, son of James and Mary Magdalene went to his tomb to anoint his body with herbs and spices, only to find it empty and a young man proclaiming that Jesus had risen. Both women flee in terror and that's it, Mark 16:9-20 were added later. In ancient cultures it was believed that a missing corpse was a sign the gods had taken them. Mark is implying that Jesus was taken by God to join him. You can see an evolution of the importance of Jesus in how the other Gospels escalate the scope of the Resurrection.

Let me make this clear, I do not believe the Resurrection happened. I am willing to believe that Jesus was a real man or a composite of different individuals. The only two events in the Gospels that historians know definitely happened were the Baptism of Jesus and the Crucifixion of Jesus. We don't know what happened after his execution, but I doubt he was so important to the Romans that they had to station centurions at his tomb. I also doubt the claim by Mythicists that the Apostles stole his body. I don't believe the Apostles were trying to con people into joining their cult. I assume that the story of the Resurrection spread through word of mouth and evolved over time from Jesus being taken away to be with god to Jesus rising from the dead with shock and awe.

From what I understand, Jesus could have just been an Essene who was parroting old prophecies about the coming of the Messiah and the Destruction of the Temple, was executed from inciting rebel by the Romans and then when the events he prophesied did happen, was deified. All I want is to know what really happened. No bias or religious undertones. I just want the truth.

[Anonymous No.19941522]

>>19941485
>the first cause needs to be pure actuality
That's only if you accept a long series of premises which are only uncontroversial among feserian drones. And you still get the problem of material causation, see felipe leon's argument.
>That is quite an assertion.
The argument was already hinted at later: the things god does necessarily follow from his will, let alone his action. This is not the case for any cause whatsoever, but it is the case for things that are bound not by causation but by logical necessity (say, numbers or other abstract objects). God's relation towards the things he does is thus like that of 3+3 equaling 6 and not like striking two rocks and causing fire.
>>19941485
>how did they convince the others that
How did people get convinced that there were people fifteen centuries ago that lived in the clouds and controlled the weather called tempestarii? People were superstitious and prone to believing all sorts of magical things. The rest of the stuff is just accretion of false beliefs/legends, which is what we know happens when things like this occur
>and were willing to be tortured and killed for that belief?
The sources for the apostles being tortuted and killed for their belief are either very late compared to the supposed fact and/or they don't state that they were killed for their belief and/or they don't state that they would have been spared had they recanted.

[Anonymous No.19941528]

>>19941485
>>doesn't understand the difference between being an eyewitness and dying for that testimony, and believing in something because somebody told you

The Heaven's Gate website is still online and being maintained by its followers, that seems a pretty legit eyewitness account to me. Clearly they've achieved the next level of human evolution, and you're just a space demon who's trying to stop all of us from reaching the True and Amazing Enlightenment of our Lord and Saviour Do, who performed the great sacrifice to hand us the key to the next stage of human evolution. Begone, space demon. I see through your lies

[Anonymous No.19941535]

>>19941521
>All I want is to know what really happened. No bias or religious undertones. I just want the truth.
This guy is a fanatic proselyte, you think he'll tell you an unbiased version? You can't know the truth because the only available sources are the gospels, that'd be like trying to figure out the truth on the historicity of greek gods while only having access to the Theogony

[Anonymous No.19941539]

>>19941535
I know. I just want to see what mental gymnastics he's going to pull off this time if he even replies.

[Anonymous No.19941548]

Can someone (not the mass replying guy, someone else) explain why infinite regress as opposed to the first mover doesn't make sense?

[Anonymous No.19941549]

>>19941485
I also want to add that most people crucified were buried in an unmarked mass grave with everyone else that was crucified. Maybe someone pulled some strings and got Jesus a proper burial, but it seems likely that as an alleged traitor the Romans would have made sure he did not have a proper burial. If true this causes issues with the idea that there ever was an empty tomb before apostles began claiming to see a risen Jesus.

[Anonymous No.19941586]

>>19941498
So you believe that a hotel could, hypothetically, exist in reality, which is completely full and yet can accommodate untold infinites of new guests just by moving people around?
>Address the argument or shut the fuck up
Your "argument" was made against a strawman misrepresentation of my position. You were arguing against yourself - you said my position was ""only created things are a cause", and then proceeded to rebut that. I could rebut it too. Make an argument against my actual position, or bow out.
>Another strawman where you pretend not to understand.
What's so hard about answering the question? Can a carpenter create a bench? Does a man impregnating a woman create a human? Are those things therefore causes? What's your problem with that?

>>19941505
>Sure thing buddy.
Unlike atheists, I literally cannot lie, because I am beholden to a transcendent moral code. Therefore I tell you truly that I was not in that thread. Believe me or not, it doesn't matter. It's good to know that you see me everywhere though :)

>how did they convince
See the Corinthian Creed, which scholars agree was of the Jerusalem church (eg. the apostles wrote/consented to it)
>dying for that testimony
Josephus for the martyrdom of James - but even then, my argument is based on their willingness to be tortured and killed, not that any of them necessarily had to be killed.

>>19941521
>66 - 74 CE
That time frame is way too narrow, it is definitely possible that it was written around ~45 AD if you don't a priori disregard prophecy as ex eventu. Same with Matthew.
>Both women flee in terror and that's it, Mark 16:9-20 were added later
There is a strong case to be made that the longer ending for Mark was original to the text, and by the same author. Would you like me to point to the authors who defend that position?
>I assume that the story of the Resurrection spread through word of mouth and evolved over time from Jesus being taken away to be with god to Jesus rising from the dead
One solid argument I would propose in contrast to this position is the Corinthian Creed. We have scholars, atheist and Christian, almost unanimously agreeing that this Creed was extremely early, within 6 months to 3 years or so. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1_Corinthians_15#Origins_of_the_creed for some basic information to go off of.
The question then arises: why would the apostles have consented to and promulgated/taught this creed, which clearly formulates the death, resurrection, and appearance to the apostles, if they knew it to be a lie/mythologization? They would definitely have known if Jesus actually had appeared to them or not. This, for me, completely rebuts the idea of mythological accretion.

[Anonymous No.19941595]

>>19941451
This thread wasn't suppose to be about Aquinas Five Ways but about Thomism Ethics.

[Anonymous No.19941597]

>>19941586
>what is a thought experiment
We're going in loops.
>strawman
No, I argued against the position "only created things have a cause" and made a typo, which you're focusing on because you're a disingenuous faggot.
>What's your problem with that
They are not discrete units, all these things are interdependent. The carpenter doesn't pull the bench out of the void.

[Anonymous No.19941608]

>>19941586
>The question then arises: why would the apostles have consented to and promulgated/taught this creed, which clearly formulates the death, resurrection, and appearance to the apostles, if they knew it to be a lie/mythologization? They would definitely have known if Jesus actually had appeared to them or not. This, for me, completely rebuts the idea of mythological accretion.
Yes, they would've, and no, they would not have known whether Jesus actually appeared to them. Eyewitness accounts from that same gospel claim all the graves in Jerusalem opened up and the saints walked the streets. That alone is absurd and mythological enough to bring the authenticity of the gospel into question. The most plausible explanation is not that the laws of the natural world were suspended once in favor of your respective diety, and if you want to claim that you must provide exhaustive proof beyond accounts of brainwashed disciples.

[Anonymous No.19941610]

>>19941586
>Unlike atheists, I literally cannot lie
Keep larping, we both know that's you, the arguments are the exact same and the hypocritical style is identical. But sure let's keep pretending if it makes you more comfortable.
>rest of the post
I'm aware of Josephus, that's literally the only non christian source. Not very compelling.

[Anonymous No.19941617]

>>19941586
There are an equal, if not greater amount of historically accurate accounts of Mohammed's life. Doesn't that validate Muslim beliefs over Christian ones, since they can very easily prove the authenticity of their claims?

[Anonymous No.19941618]

>>19941586
>Corinthian Creed,
>authored by Paul
kek

[Anonymous No.19941632]

>>19941586
Let's suppose Jesus went to the cross, died, and was found alive later. Aren't there a plethora of more compelling explanations than "he was the song of God"? Josephus even claims a victim of crucifixion was taken off of his cross and later fully recovered. Why is there any reason to believe the same didn't occur in the case of Jesus?

[Anonymous No.19941634]

>>19941548
Anyone?

[Anonymous No.19941636]

>>19941190
>unless you arbitrarily believe in infinite regression despite its ontological impossibility
>The thought experiment demonstrates the ontological impossibility of infinite sets existing in reality.
You're not explaining why it is an "ontological impossibility"
>A quantum field is nothing?
Yeah, you need to learn quantum mechanics before rambling
>Was there a universe before the Big Bang?
Again, you're missing the point. The big bang cannot accurately predict "the first moments" of the universe, if the equations by which it is derived don't work at a quantum scale, with great densities and energies
>Do most physicists believe that the Big Bang model is the best explanation for why the universe exists in its present form?
More or less yes, but its foundations aren't rock solid: for example, the best model we have (lambda-CDM) requires 95% of the energy density of the universe to be attributed to dark matter and dark energy, none of which have ever been directly observed
>eg. what caused it
Misinterpretation, yet again
It cannot predict the early stages of the universe, that requires a quantum treatment, which unfortunately we still don't have

[Anonymous No.19941637]

>>19941485
>the ontologically impossible infinite regression
This is it, God just exists to cope with a phantasm of the the faculty of reason?

[Anonymous No.19941646]

>>19941485
>people are only willing to die for things that are true
Wow what a mess of an epistemology

[Anonymous No.19941662]

>>19941586
>So you believe that a hypothetical infinite hotel can exist in reality?
Holy shit you're retarded beyond salvation

[Anonymous No.19941665]

>>19941586
>why would the apostles have consented to and promulgated/taught this creed, which clearly formulates the death, resurrection, and appearance to the apostles, if they knew it to be a lie/mythologization?
Aren't all the other religions false? Why did their priests lie about their beliefs and not yours?

[Anonymous No.19941675]

>>19941665
Obviously the priests of other religions don't have such compelling historical documents as the gospels, silly

[Anonymous No.19941691]

>>19941675
Right, the epistemological weight is too strong in favor of the Christian miracles. Aquinas once sat on a Moorish spice trader until he expired, and then a pheasant flew into his lap for him to dine on.

[Anonymous No.19941694]

>>19941586
>So you believe that a hotel could, hypothetically, exist in reality, which is completely full and yet can accommodate untold infinites of new guests just by moving people around?
Can you leave it to william lane craig to not understand the difference between "strange" and "paradoxical" ?

[Anonymous No.19941698]

>>19941522
>That's only if you accept a long series of premises which are only uncontroversial among feserian drones.
The Thomistic arguments for this are not long premised at all. Either way, unless you defeat a premise, the conclusion stands, regardless of how long a given argument is.
>And you still get the problem of material causation, see felipe leon's argument.
I will look into his argument, but simply referencing him is not enough to go off of in this discussion. Can you explain it to me?
>the things god does necessarily follow from his will, let alone his action
I don't see this as a premise, but an assumed conclusion. Can you explain why I should believe that God's actions are logically necessitated, and not the result of free choice?
>How did people get convinced that there were people fifteen centuries ago that lived in the clouds and controlled the weather called tempestarii?
Yes, but they were taking other's word, not agreeing to promulgate a creed which said "I physically saw X with my own eyes". This is the key distinction in the arguments for the apostolic testimony - why would they have agreed to teach something if they knew it to be a lie, especially risking torture and death (they wouldn't). Therefore, they believed it - but why?
>The sources for the apostles being tortuted and killed for their belief are either very late compared to the supposed fact
The argument only requires that they were willing (which is evidenced by their preaching, and at least the death of James in Josephus), not that they actually were killed. St. John was probably not martyred, for example, but his witness is still incredibly valuable (as an eyewitness testifying while also being a declaration against interest).

>>19941528
Heaven's Gate believed what they had been told, not testified to what they had seen. For the thousandth time.

>>19941549
It doesn't seem unreasonable to me that a rich man paid for a proper burial. Remember that the Romans were mostly apathetic about Jesus as yet another rebel, only killing Him to prevent a Jewish rebellion.

>>19941597
So can a carpenter create a bench? Can a man and a woman create a child?

>>19941608
>Yes, they would've, and no, they would not have known whether Jesus actually appeared to them.
Can you elaborate? Yes, they would've what? And what do you mean the apostles wouldn't have known whether Jesus appeared to them - that's the whole point, that the Corinthian Creed is an incredibly early witness of what the Jerusalem Church (eg. the apostles) believed and taught. Why would the apostles have taught that Jesus appeared to them all if they didn't know if He had appeared to them? I don't really get what you're implying happened.

>>19941610
Rent-free
>give me a source
Gave you a source
>I don't find it compelling
Uhh, okay?

>>19941617
Muslims testify to what Muhammad told them, not what they saw with their own eyes. Muhammad's situation is more akin to Heaven's Gate than Christianity - a cult leader

[Anonymous No.19941709]

>>19941698
>So can a carpenter create a bench?
Not create. Contribute to the creation, sure.

[Anonymous No.19941718]

>>19941698
>Rent-free
More like "so fucking obnoxious his posting style is recognizable across several boards" lol
>Uhh, okay?
Wow bro this one dude said that one of Jesus' followers had a violent death. Surely this means the gospels in which the entirety of the rest of the "testimonies" are contained are true. kek

[Anonymous No.19941719]

>>19941618
>>authored by Paul
Written down by Paul, scholars (including atheists) almost unanimously agree that it originated from the very early Jerusalem Church (eg. the apostles).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1_Corinthians_15#Origins_of_the_creed

>>19941632
>Aren't there a plethora of more compelling explanations than "he was the song of God"
Perhaps, if He had not claimed beforehand to be the divine pre-existent Messiah, and then prophesied to His apostles that He would rise from the dead and appear to them. Those factors alone make it way more improbably that He was wrong - what are the odds that somebody says "I will be crucified, and then I will rise from the dead" if they only survived through some lucky means? Plus Josephus' testimony actually hurts the skeptic - 2/3 of the crucifixion victims died even with the most sophisticated medical care of the day

[Anonymous No.19941723]

>>19941698
>Heaven's Gate believed what they had been told, not testified to what they had seen.

How do you know? Were you there?

[Anonymous No.19941726]

>>19941719
>Written down by Paul
Doesn't change shit.
>wow bro a community of cult members decided to """"""""""testify"""""""""" about the resurrection of the cult leader half a decade after he died!
Oh wow it's literally nothing

[Anonymous No.19941728]

>>19941719
Why do you find it more likely that every fundamental rule of the natural world was broken once and never again, instead of the plethora of alternative explanations that do not require a complete suspension of everything we know to be true in accordance with science and reason? Not only that, not all of Jesus' prophecies came true. The rise of Christianity as a religion took much, much longer than he predicted and that alone puts a hole in your boat when it comes to that line of reasoning.

[Anonymous No.19941736]

>>19941698
I'm implying that the apostles may have lied or been deceived. Why is that not a possibility for you? If Christianity is true, then every other religion on earth is the product of such deceit and there exists great precedence for it. Also, how do you account for the eyewitness accounts that every grave in Jerusalem opened and saints walked the streets? That's a very bold claim and falls more into the realm of mythology than historicity. Does this claim alone not cast doubt upon the authenticity of the gospels?

[Anonymous No.19941758]

>>19941636
>You're not explaining why it is an "ontological impossibility"
Because it is literally impossible for such a thing to exist in reality, only in abstraction. The whole point is to show that while something can be valid in the realm of the abstract, that some valid concept can not be instantiated in our physical reality without ontological impossibility. How could somebody actually believe that a hotel could, hypothetically, exist in reality, which is completely full and yet can accommodate untold infinites of new guests just by moving people around? The obvious answer is, it's only a thought experiment, it can't actually exist in reality - and that is because an actual infinite series cannot be instantiated in reality, or else we would say "Sure, hypothetically that hotel could exist in the universe".
>>19941646
The whole point is WHY they believed it to be true, not that they believed it to be true. What are the hypotheses for why they believed Jesus Christ had risen from the dead and appeared to them for a long period of time before resurrecting in their sight. Not THAT they did, but WHY they did.
>>19941637
>>19941662
>>19941694
The whole point is that the thought experiment IS ontologically impossible in our reality, though valid in the realm of the abstract. I don't know how you aren't getting this.

>>19941723
Do you know the story of Heaven's Gate? It is just like Muhammad - a charismatic cult leader.

>>19941709
Exactly. That is the same position I have - while not the ultimate (first) cause, the carpenter (or the parents) are the instrumental cause, or a secondary cause.

>>19941726
Why did they decide to testify that they had seen Jesus appear and hang out with them, eating and drinking and teaching, for a long period, until He ascended into heaven in their sight? What do you think they saw that convinced them of that?

[Anonymous No.19941761]

>>19941758
>Why did they decide to testify
According to your documents which were written by cult members. Sorry bro not buying it

[Anonymous No.19941773]

>>19941758
>That is the same position I have
There is no ultimate first cause. It's a fluctuation of elements. You say you've investigated other religions but it's painfully obvious you've either never bothered with or never properly understood dependent origination and Emptiness. The first cause begs the question, it relies on special pleading and a posteriori reasoning.

[Anonymous No.19941774]

>>19941719
The Gospels are not historically reliable documents. Luke states that the Census in the Nativity narrative was the Census of Quirinius, which takes place in 6 CE, but also states that it took place during the reign of Herod the Great, who died in 4 BCE, a decade earlier.

[Anonymous No.19941779]

>>19941698
>The Thomistic arguments for this are not long premised at all.
The thomistic arguments when properly articulated are actually really long, see feser.
>but simply referencing him is not enough to go off of in this discussion.
I already gave you the gist of the argument AND the name of the philosopher. Literally just google it.
>Can you explain why I should believe that God's actions are logically necessitated
Is there a possible world where God tries to do something, like say create a universe and fail? No, there isn't. Because omnipotence entails not just being able to do things but never actually failing to do them. If there's no universe in which this does not obtain, it means that the things God does necessarily follow from him trying to do them, and him trying to do them necessarily follows from his will, which necessarily follows from his nature. Which means the relationship is not the one that exists between causes and effect because causation isn't logically necessary: there could be a world for example where hitting two rocks together causes water.
>why would they have agreed to teach something if they knew it to be a lie
Where have I said that they knew it to be a lie? The people believed it to be true due to a) post-bereavment hallucinations and B) cognitive dissonance. And the other people believed them in turn because they were superstitious idiots.
>The argument only requires that they were willing
The argument requires a lot, and even when I concede it, it still doesn't prove anything, see my earlier complete explanation of the non-resurrection

[Anonymous No.19941780]

>>19941758
Why haven't you responded to
>>19941728
>>19941774
>>19941736

[Anonymous No.19941796]

>>19941758
>The whole point is WHY they believed it to be true, not that they believed it to be true. What are the hypotheses for why they believed
Why did the priests of Serapis or Ammon believe in their gods? Aren't those gods false? Why do people believe in false gods? You should be able to answer this

[Anonymous No.19941827]

>>19941728
>instead of the plethora of alternative explanations that do not require a complete suspension of everything we know to be true in accordance with science and reason
What other explanations are you positing? I have not seen any alternative hypotheses which actually explain all of the relevant facts - they fail Occam's Razor.
>Not only that, not all of Jesus' prophecies came true.
I disagree on that, I think it's mostly misconceptions about the Olivet Discourse in their Second Temple Judaic context, and how the Jewish Temple/Jerusalem represented a microcosm of heaven, and so speaking about the destruction of the world was the same as the destruction of Jerusalem.

>>19941736
It is certainly a possibility, but I don't understand why that is more likely. For them to lie means that they knowingly were sentencing themselves to an eternity in Hell for lying and leading the children of Israel astray (not to mention the potential for persecution and torture), and the deception part has not been articulated in any meaningful way (do you mean that some disciples chose to fool others? in what way?) - either way, I think the apostolic community consenting to the Corinthian Creed and teaching it puts a hole in the latter hypothesis, because it would mean they were willingly lying (eg. saying they saw Jesus when they actually didn't).
>>19941761
Making an ad-hominem attack does not invalidate their testimony. Scholars can see this, and attempt to reconstruct the "historical Jesus" - why can't you set aside your biases? Plus, the fact that they testified to these things is accepted by almost all scholars, including atheists. Again, look at the following:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1_Corinthians_15#Origins_of_the_creed

>>19941773
>There is no ultimate first cause
You haven't rebutted the arguments for Him, though.
>you say you've investigated other religions but it's painfully obvious you've either never bothered
I did.
>never properly understood dependent origination and Emptiness
Explain why I should believe the random Indian guy who told you those things are true (even though they lead to ontological absurdity and paradox)?
>The first cause begs the question
What premise in particular begs the question, in your opinion?
>>19941774
"The Gospels" are not what we're talking about. We're specifically talking about the eyewitness accounts, eg. Matthew and John. I'm happy to talk about Luke (a secondary source), but this is not relevant to the discussion.

>>19941796
>Why did the priests of Serapis or Ammon believe in their gods?
Because somebody told them they were real.
>Aren't those gods false?
Probably either demons or man-made constructs, yes.
>Why do people believe in false gods?
Probably because of tradition, or charismatic people convincing them.
None of these have any relevance to the apostles, who were eyewitnesses to the events (which they testified to, both in writing, and in the Corinthian Creed). Nobody "told them" to believe.

[Anonymous No.19941836]

>>19941827
>Again
Reposting the same link does not an argument make. All the testimonies are contained in the gospels which invalidates them automatically the same way any testimonies about the truth of a religion can't be taken seriously if they're contained in scripture.

[Anonymous No.19941843]

>>19941827
>You haven't rebutted
I have, several times, and you've always refused to engage, citing typos in order to weasel out of having to make an argument. Your choice.
>Explain why I should
I never said that. Stop strawmanning.
>What premise
The very notion itself.

[Anonymous No.19941847]

>>19941827
>None of these have any relevance to the apostles, who were eyewitnesses to the events (which they testified to, both in writing, and in the Corinthian Creed). Nobody "told them" to believe.
You know you could make similar cases for Mormonism, and the only way to refute them would be to appeal to non-mormon contemporary documents which we don't have for christianity?

[Anonymous No.19941852]

>>19941827
>None of these have any relevance to the apostles, who were eyewitnesses to the events
Yeah I imagine if you tell someone that your god is handing out eternal life vouchers and they ask how you know that, "because I saw him come back from the dead" is a good answer to give

[Anonymous No.19941853]

The amount of sheer cognitive dissonance and mental gymnastics in this dude's posts is seriously impressive, I've rarely seen anything like it.

[Anonymous No.19941860]

>>19941853
He's living proof that Celsus, Porphyry, and Julian Augustus were literally right about everything

[Anonymous No.19941867]

>>19941827
>that they testified to these things
Yeah and?
Seriously. What the fuck does that imply except that a bunch of cult members got together to make a false testimony?

[Anonymous No.19941875]

>>19941860
Redpill me on these three guys, I see them mentioned occasionally but I've never really looked into their life and writings

[Anonymous No.19941876]

>>19941827
>It is certainly a possibility, but I don't understand why that is more likely. For them to lie means that they knowingly were sentencing themselves to an eternity in Hell for lying and leading the children of Israel astray (not to mention the potential for persecution and torture), and the deception part has not been articulated in any meaningful way (do you mean that some disciples chose to fool others? in what way?) - either way, I think the apostolic community consenting to the Corinthian Creed and teaching it puts a hole in the latter hypothesis, because it would mean they were willingly lying (eg. saying they saw Jesus when they actually didn't).
Why do you assume they believed any part of Christian or Jewish dogma? Why couldn't they have been secular, or satanic? Not only that, if they believed their claims to be true (but the claims themselves were not) it makes a more compelling case than one for a supernatural occurrence. The possibility of them lying or intentionally deceiving themselves into believing is much more compelling than a once-in-the-lifetime-of-our-entire-universe supernatural resurrection.

[Anonymous No.19941884]

>>19941827
The explanation that everything was hallucinated passes occam's razor better than any supernatural explanation does, especially in the absence of precedence for such events.

[Anonymous No.19941896]

>>19941827
Now we're talking about the gospels, and I've just proved one false. If one gospel is false, doesn't that invalidate the entire religion? Especially since it's considered canonical by nearly every Christian authority or theologian.

[Anonymous No.19941898]

>arguing about historical details in documents
Why are you people even humoring him? Historical data is notoriously unreliable, especially when it comes to subjects as touchy as religion, why would you even consider starting a discussion on these grounds?
Furthermore, a "Christian" seeking to prove his faith through tangible historical data is obviously a larper and has entirely missed the point of what faith means. The point of religion and especially Christianity is that you need to have faith, not to have the googling skills necessary to find the current academic consensus on the historicity of the gospel's testimonies.

[Anonymous No.19941907]

>>19941898
If the very foundational myths of Christianity are false, why should any other part of it be considered anything but?

[Anonymous No.19941920]

>>19941907
No I mean obviously you can poke holes at the historicity of the documents since they're very likely to be bullshit but that's missing the point.
I guess it does testify as to the primitiveness of Christian or really Abrahamic beliefs in general though when the central part of their religion is a bunch of stupid historical details from 2000 years ago and they somehow believe this to be worth arguing about let alone meaningful. You'll never see a dharmist start to preach about the historicity of Krishna or Siddhartha because that's beside the point and he knows the teachings can stand on their own without needing "historical proofs"

[Anonymous No.19941922]

>>19941920
Very true. Christianity has always been more reliant on dogma than anything else.

[Anonymous No.19941930]

>>19941875
They survive in fragments although we do have Porphyry's commentary on the Cave of the Nymphs as Homeric allegory, and he also edited and compiled the Enneads of his teacher, Plotinus. The Interpretation of the New Testament in Greco-Roman Paganism, by John Granger Cook, exhaustively covers the major surviving passages from Celsus, Porphyry, and Julian Augustus and attempts to reconstruct what their full arguments most likely entailed. Wilken's The Christians as the Romans Saw Them also covers Celsus and Julian

[Anonymous No.19941937]

>>19941930
Thanks. Are they genuine and solid refutations or merely opinions and perspectives from the time?

[Anonymous No.19941950]

>>19941634
Still waiting

[Anonymous No.19941954]

>>19941779
>The thomistic arguments when properly articulated are actually really long, see feser.
They can be articulated, yeah, but they are not of themselves necessarily long. Feser's argument is long because He also includes the proofs for God's attributes, not just that He exists.
>I already gave you the gist of the argument AND the name of the philosopher. Literally just google it.
I will, but I'm in the middle of 10 conversations right now - if you can't make the argument here, I'll just research it later for next time.
>and him trying to do them necessarily follows from his will, which necessarily follows from his nature
I accept the first premise, that omnipotence entails always being able to accomplish what one sets out to do, but I don't understand how this premise comes about. Why must God's will be non-free? He is an omnipotent being, I don't see why He should "have" to do something.
>The people believed it to be true due to a) post-bereavment hallucinations and B) cognitive dissonance
All of them, simultaneously? If not, what, just one of them, who then convinced the others to lie despite them not having hallucinations?
Why would the others agree to lie, knowing that lying to get people to worship a false God is punishable by damnation, not to mention that they would be risking torture/death?
>The argument requires a lot, and even when I concede it, it still doesn't prove anything
Just so we're on the same page, if you concede the argument, what would change in your position? What would you now believe?

>>19941836
>All the testimonies are contained in the gospels
Again, no, read the link. It is an EXTERNAL creed from the earliest Jerusalem community (according to the near-unanimous testimony of even atheist scholars), which was RECORDED by Paul.
>>19941843
I appreciate your tenacity, but this type there is literally nothing for me to go off of here. You haven't addressed any of the questions I just asked. I asked you to explain why your position is rational, you didn't. I asked you to explain what premise you disagree with, you didn't. Until you do, there's nothing more to discuss
>>19941847
Mormonism is an interesting case, but they stood much to gain from being elders in the movement - the opposite of the apostles, who gave up everything - but if you just read their brief biographies, you can see that there was always a weird air about the three witnesses. One of them, Whitmer, was excommunicated and said that God gave him a divine revelation to start a new church (convenient), another (Harris) repeatedly testified to the fact that he never actually saw the plates in reality, and the last (Cowdery) was excommunicated, recanted his beliefs, became a Methodist, but later in life came back to the church after Smith was assassinated. It's nothing like the apostles, at all.

[Anonymous No.19941960]

>>19941954
>from the earliest Jerusalem community
kek
> which was RECORDED by Paul.
KEK
Should I point out the obvious here?

[Anonymous No.19941963]

>>19941960
I think he's beyond saving at this point, that's why he's on /lit/ instead of /his/. he already got his ass completely prolapse over there

[Anonymous No.19941965]

>>19941954
>until you stop trying to get me to make an argument, there's nothing more to discuss
Okay. Have a good one.
>>19941963
Weird because /his/ is overall dumber than /lit/.

[Anonymous No.19941972]

>>19941965
/his/ may be dumber on average, but there's a higher concentration of absurdly autistic and well-read anons who run circles around people like this guy

[Anonymous No.19941976]

>>19941972
Guess so. Although he got eviscerated ITT and keeps going to it doesn't seem like shame is a problem for him

[Anonymous No.19941978]

>>19941852
>>19941867
>>19941884
The hallucination theory is probably the second weakest, right after the messianic lie hypothesis. There is no documented case in all of human history of people simultaneously having a vision of a dead person physically resurrecting from the dead, and that physically resurrected person hanging out with them for an extended period of time. Besides that, this physically resurrected person (who they all testify is not a ghost) is doing entirely normal human things - eating, drinking, and teaching, before, in the simultaneous sight of all the hallucinators (including many more people who started hallucinating after the initial 12), ascending into heaven in all of their sight. It is so ridiculous that something like this could ever happen, that the atheists/skeptics end up hilariously arguing FOR a miraculous and unprecedented event to explain the resurrection appearances, which is arguable even more miraculous than the actual resurrection itself. See N.T. Wright's The Resurrection of the Son of God for even more information on why a bodily resurrection in particular (rather than a ghostly/spiritual resurrection) was so much more unlikely a subject for a hallucination, nevermind 12+ simultaneous and extended hallucinations.

[Anonymous No.19941985]

>>19941960
Go ahead, I'm not sure exactly what the "obvious" is, when even atheist scholars agree that what you're quoting is true.

[Anonymous No.19941987]

>>19941937
Celsus is more concerned with behavior and reputation of Christians as knocks against them, though has some familiarity with the beliefs and may have had access to Justin Martyr's work. Porphyry had access to scripture and argues against passages from it well enough for his work to be banned by Christian emperors. Julian Augustus was raised Christian and is most astute of all the critics, as he recognized the relationship with Judaism was the weakest point of the religion's claims, among other criticisms that could only come from an... apostate. It is to that point he proposed rebuilding the Temple in Jerusalem, because it would ruin the Christians' arguments that they could ignore the old covenant if that building didn't exist anymore to offer sacrifice in. Julian's work is also banned by later authorities. Evidently all these writers were persuasive and influential or their works would not have been rebutted and banned.
>>19941922
The Roman physician Galen made fun of this almost 1800 years ago.

[Anonymous No.19941990]

>>19941978
I didn't say any of the shit you're bringing up, I said they got together and made some shit up.
But hey if you want to see your hypotheses blown the fuck out you can just click on the /his/ thread which you totally never posted in and see for yourself why your refutations don't hold.

[Anonymous No.19941991]

>>19941758
A physical infinite hotel cannot exist, that has nothing to do with an infinite series of events happening. Objects =/= events
Also, you are turning the Hilbert Hotel into something that it is not, an argument against the existence of a real infinite "something". It was elaborated as a means to explain why infinite entities do not behave as normal everyday objects, and why humanity usually cannot grasp it.
If real infinite entities cannot exist because they are an "ontological impossibility", that doesn't sound like a good argument for the existence of an infinite god, does it?

[Anonymous No.19941995]

>>19941978
>The hallucination theory is probably the second weakest, right after the messianic lie hypothesis. There is no documented case in all of human history of people simultaneously having a vision of a dead person physically resurrecting from the dead, and that physically resurrected person hanging out with them for an extended period of time.
You're supposing that Jesus actually died on the cross. Why couldn't he have simply been revived by natural means, and why is this explanation less favorable than the supernatural one? There are thousands of documented cases of people seemingly "dying" and later coming back to life, it's not an unknown phenomenon and it doesn't require any rejections of natural law.

[Anonymous No.19941996]

>>19941985
>cultists make testimonies about their cult leader
Do you still need a nudge?

[Anonymous No.19942001]

>>19941978
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_hysteria_cases
retard

[Anonymous No.19942002]

>>19941978
Not necessarily a hallucination. They are just believing in a demon. Like priests of Ammon or Serapis. There's no difference. Their demon says he can raise the dead, big deal.

[Anonymous No.19942006]

Anyone ITT arguing against this guy who isn't a physicalist? I'm asking because most of the arguments seem to revolve around resurrection being impossible. I'm not a theist, I'd describe myself as some kind of subjective idealist, so this "resurrection can't happen so it's not true" argument doesn't convince me much, are there other arguments against Christianity that are not based around this?

[Anonymous No.19942007]

>>19941978
>The Miracle of the Sun (Oct. 13, 1917): Three young children claimed to have received an apparition by the Virgin Mary in Fatima, Portugal who promised a miracle. A crowd of thousands gathered to witness the promised miracle. When the sun broke through the clouds on the day of the miracle, many of the witnesses within the crowd said that the sun's light appeared abnormal and that the sun changed colors and spun around in the sky.

[Anonymous No.19942014]

>>19942006
Ressurection can happen and does happen. It's a medical phenomenon that has recorded cases in modernity. Jesus being resurrected only proves he wasn't truly dead to begin with.

[Anonymous No.19942020]

>>19942014
Then don't you have to account for his ascent to heaven? Honestly I don't believe Christianity is true because it makes zero sense to me from start to finish but I think arguments based on empiricism are only compelling if you're a physicalist in the first place, which a lot of people who seek truth are not.

[Anonymous No.19942026]

>>19942020
What ascent to heaven? That can be explained in a million different ways. There are hundreds of cases of mass-hallucinations, or they simply could've fallen for an optical illusion. There are a plethora of plausible explanations which do not go in direct violation of established axioms of the natural world.

[Anonymous No.19942031]

>>19942006
Let's assume sorcery is possible. Why does the sorcery of Jesus prove 1. that he is literally god and 2. that his other doctrines are correct? The Roman world knew of sorcery and associated it strongly with Egypt, and Egyptian gods like Isis and Serapis were popular throughout the Mediterranean, but no one had said the sorceror was actually the god. In fact, many early gentile converts probably saw Jesus the same way, as another funko god to collect, and we have evidence that people did not always convert for life as is sometimes assumed (you could "switch" gods if you wanted to pray for something, this was obvious to practically minded pagans).

[Anonymous No.19942033]

>>19941758
>The obvious answer is, it's only a thought experiment, it can't actually exist in reality - and that is because an actual infinite series cannot be instantiated in reality
An infinite hotel is not an infinite series, it is an infinite object
Would you say that the universe is an ontological impossibility?

[Anonymous No.19942043]

>>19942031
Yeah I guess. You're right that supernatural events in themselves wouldn't prove the rest of the claims surrounding him were true. Especially since he never clearly calls himself God in the gospels as far as I remember.
Miracles were commonplace and still are in India and the surrounding regions I think, and you've got nobody claiming to be God there (or everybody considering the tenets of hinduism but you get the point).
So do you think Jesus, if his supernatural abilities were true, was just a sorcerer/a yogi with siddhis who lied to people? That would make him kind of a cunt.

[Anonymous No.19942048]

>>19942026
Aren't these explanations conveniently coincidental to an extent that's unheard of either before or after? I'm mostly playing devil's advocate here.

[Anonymous No.19942051]

>>19942048
What's unheard of, mass hysteria?

[Anonymous No.19942058]

>>19942051
Well, to such a widespread extent, for that amount of time and for this specific an event, yeah.

[Anonymous No.19942065]

>>19942058
Are you referring to his ascension to heaven specifically or his period of life after ressurection? Because I didn't think his ascension was a particularly drawn-out affair.

[Anonymous No.19942073]

>>19942043
It is not necessary that Jesus have been a liar. The central figure of the early church is Paul, who never even met Jesus. Jesus is also only documented after his death, and 'christology' remains intensely debated for the next 400 years. Some of the 'heresies' condemned by the heirs of Pauline Christianity sound almost modern in their understanding of Jesus.

[Anonymous No.19942075]

>>19941954
>Why must God's will be non-free?
If you want we can just stop the argument at omnipotence, it still works, it's just less radical. It's still very radical, because it means that every single cosmological argument concerning causes can NOT point to God because God - as I've already shown - lacks causal power, acting instead as a "logical necessitator" of sort. Which means those arguments in turn become either atheistic arguments (since they require something that God can't provide) or arguments for open theism.
>All of them, simultaneously?
There's literally no need for that to happen. We would expect at the very least 3 of them to have Post-bereavement hallucination, the rest can just experience Jesus in the same way charismatic christians experience Jesus weekly, maybe see Jesus in the clouds and that's it, you don't need anything more than that. We're not talking about a skeptical audience, we're talking about very emotionally involved people who belonged to a time where peasants shouted at lunar eclipses in order to make them go away. All the minor details that don't match up can just be embellishment by accretion/mistaken memories and stuff that as I've already said we know to happen in those situations.
>what would change in your position? What would you now believe?
That the apostles would have been sincere. That's it. But as I've repeatedly shown, there is no need for them to lie in order to obtain what we know historically to have happened.

[Anonymous No.19942079]

>>19942065
Regarding his ascension, wouldn't it be weird? A bunch of people suddenly hallucinate him ascending for no real reason. And where does he go afterwards anyway?

I actually just remembered I read a book about the holographic theory a long time ago that attempted to frame supernatural events in the context of a holographic universe (not a simulation, much closer to platonism or maybe vedanta than to the redditism you're thinking about) and it actually made a lot of sense to me back then. I should reread it, I recommend anons do too if you're open to the idea of idealism as opposed to materialism.

[Anonymous No.19942087]

>>19942079
kek I told people to read the book but didn't say what the book was, I'm a dumbass. Pic related. There were some really kooky passages but the overarching point was interesting, if anyone knows similar books on related subjects I'd be interested.

[Anonymous No.19942089]

>>19942058
This assumes the event is true and the alternative explanations are false, as if there were nothing inherently incredulous about the event. You are trying to say "mass hysteria is far less likely than a one-off resurrection of a dead man" but apparently you've never witnessed a crowd spin out of control or met anyone passionate about something as part of a group.

[Anonymous No.19942095]

>>19942079
It is weird, but it could easily be mass hysteria. There are many documented cases of a large group of people claiming to see a particular event simultaneously despite said event never occurring. I have no idea where he goes afterward, but that's not of much import. He could've easily wandered off into the desert to die, or been eaten, or any other number of mundane explanations.

[Anonymous No.19942098]

>>19941954
>Mormonism is an interesting case
Again, you can't use non-mormon sources to disprove them, that's my whole point. We don't have contemporary non-christian sources talking about this stuff so you can see how difficult it can be to refute something that is otherwise obviously false when you lack sources.
Also, they don't have just the 3 witnesses, but also the 8 witnesses who "Yet despite the estrangement of the Whitmer family, there is little evidence that any of the Eight Witnesses denied his testimony to the authenticity of the Book of Mormon or the gold plates". AND a couple of women if I'm not mistaken.

[Anonymous No.19942110]

>>19942073
Ah yes, you're right. You're referring to gnosticism I'm guessing, but aren't the gnostic apocrypha dated much, much later than the synoptic gospels which would make them automatically false?
What are the plausible alternatives to pauline christianity? Also, the gospels themselves were not authored by Paul, so not all of the NT is paulinian.
>>19942089
>>19942095
I guess. It's just not a very satisfactory explanation. He ressucitates because the crucifiction was botched; teaches his disciples who believe he came back from the dead (but he says nothing about that); then he fucks off forever and dies. It's kind of retarded.

[Anonymous No.19942114]

>>19942079
>Regarding his ascension, wouldn't it be weird?
The ascension would be quite weird if real because it makes a lot of sense given jewish millennia old cosmology, but not much given what we actually know about the atmosphere, space and the rest.

[Anonymous No.19942122]

>>19942110
Why is it more retarded than the belief that every known rule of our reality was broken once at a very specific point in history and never again, before or after?

[Anonymous No.19942134]

>>19942122
That doesn't bother me as much because I'm not a physicalist and I'm ready to accept "miracles" happened before and after. It's not the supernatural aspect of Christianity that I don't believe in, it's all the surrounding claims.

[Anonymous No.19942148]

>>19942134
I guess it comes down to a fundamental difference in our belief of what is or is not possible in accordance with nature. That aside, the historicity of those claims you mentioned is very questionable.

[Anonymous No.19942157]

>>19942110
>What are the plausible alternatives to pauline christianity?
I've never cared enough to reconstruct a what-if version of Christianity because there are other systems that account for supernatural occurences and soteriology without asking you to agree to a convenant based on sorcery.

[Anonymous No.19942168]

>>19942148
>the historicity of those claims you mentioned
When I said "surrounding claims" I meant things along the lines of the god of israel being the creator of the universe and that he once had a contract with the jews but that's not a thing anymore and whatnot. Those kind of claims that I guess feel like trying to fit the ineffable vastness of existence into the petty squabbles of desert tribes, which I find distasteful.

[Anonymous No.19942174]

>>19942157
Which of these systems are you interested in? Just curious, I agree with you for the reasons stated in >>19942168

[Anonymous No.19942196]

>>19940439
>I really don't see how you can be an anti-semite without detonating your entire religion
>what is the Talmud
This is pretty basic shit, so you might just be retarded
The good ones accepted Christ
Those who continue to reject their own saviour are bad

[Anonymous No.19942214]

>>19942196
Jesus was the jews' messiah, they should've accepted him and done their thing instead of dragging the entire world into their bullshit.

[Anonymous No.19942220]

>>19941990
>they lied
See >>19941388

>>19941991
The whole point is to demonstrate that a certain property of infinity does not carry over to the physical realm. It is logically impossible for there to be an infinite set of anything, including moments in time, in a physical universe, only in abstraction (like Hilbert's Hotel) is it possible.

>>19941995
>swoon theory
An incredibly weak hypothesis. Besides the fact that, as I mentioned before, 2 out of the three crucifixion victims who were taken off the cross alive, recorded by Josephus, died even WITH the most advanced medical care of the time - we have no evidence to suggest that Jesus received any kind of medical care like this, and if He did, He certainly would not have been in a position to be walking around and eating and drinking with people for ~40 days - nevermind the ascension, which you have to account for.

>>19941996
I already addressed that. You are assuming they are lying. See >>19941388

>>19942001
Mass hysteria =/= a huge group of people having a prolonged hallucination of a physical man coming to life and eating and drinking with them and then ascending to heaven in the sight of even more witnesses. It's not even comparable - not only post-hoc, but also, such a hallucination might even be a greater miracle than the resurrection
>>19942002
Yet they all attest that the person actually did raise from the dead.
>>19942007
I believe this happened. I am a Catholic.
>>19942033
>Would you say that the universe is an ontological impossibility?
No, but I would say that it is an ontological impossibility for there to be an infinite series of moments in time - the universe is expanding, sure, but it is currently a discrete volume that is growing, not an "infinite" volume

[Anonymous No.19942241]

>>19942220
>See >>19941388
Basedjaks now? Well, I accept your concession. You're getting tired from all the bullshit you've been spouting for hours, I suppose. That amount of mental gymnastics would take a toll on anybody, even the most tenacious of autists.

[Anonymous No.19942247]

>>19942174
Not necessary committed to either in particular but Platonism and Buddhism avoid the sort of magical founder problem; even when they make Plato or Buddha "divine" it is in a kind of archetypal sense rather than historical—you are not ultimately beholden to Plato or Buddha as the savior and can reach wisdom on your own by application. And you have practices like theurgy and tantra which are supposed to make the highest reality accessible rather than being a just-so promise that may be fulfilled if you die with the correct belief system and fortune of having read about Jesus.

[Anonymous No.19942259]

>>19942220
>It is logically impossible for there to be an infinite set of anything
It's not at all, there's literally nothing logically impossible about infinite sets in a physical universe. You can even have infinite half-times in a finite time if time is continuous for example. But that's beside the point. It's so not logicall impossible that even Aquinas accepted that it was not possible to prove that the past wasn't infinite.

[Anonymous No.19942263]

>>19942196
What if I am outside your heuristic and just see two squabbling anti-Romans?

[Anonymous No.19942276]

>>19940809
>If it's uncaused, it means things
what thing
we're talking about being
the fact that you just throw out 'thing' in this context shows you dont get it

[Anonymous No.19942280]

>>19942098
>Again, you can't use non-mormon sources to disprove them, that's my whole point.
What? You can use all relevant sources. It's a historical analysis.
>We don't have contemporary non-christian sources talking about this stuff
Why should we need them? If somebody witnessed the resurrection of Jesus Christ and wrote about it, they would obviously be classified as a Christian in the eyes of history. It's just a post-hoc way to discard the testimonies that doesn't cohere with the historical method
>the eight witnesses
Yeah, there's surely no reason to suspect that the family of the cult leader, who standed to gain immense riches from his cult (and be disgraced in their community forever if they disbelieved), would adhere to his lie

>>19942241
I've addressed the ridiculousness of the messianic lie hypothesis ad nauseum in this thread. If you have something new to bring up to support it, please do so. I really don't understand the rationale for why Jesus' followers would all have lied about their teacher rising from the dead to obtain for themselves the rewards of brutal torture and death, so that they speedily could be punished in hell for all eternity by their God for lying.

[Anonymous No.19942281]

>>19942220
>they all attest that the person actually did raise from the dead
Because they believe he did, just like priests of Ammon and Serapis believe in their gods' powers. You wouldn't deny the powers of your god would you? If he raises people from the dead that's what he does. Now, as you believe the other theists are lying, what proof remains that your obviously unverifiable claims are true and not just-so mythological tales like the rest?

[Anonymous No.19942293]

>>19942247
Yeah these are the two worldviews I'm debating as well. I'm mainly struggling between realism and nominalism at this point.
Regarding theurgy and tantra, for the sake of argument, the Christians do have hesychasm, although it remains subordinated to faith first and foremost.
>>19942263
Then you should Repent ©

[Anonymous No.19942306]

>>19942263
> anti-Romans?
who?
oh, that ancient civilization that lived on through the Roman Catholic Church?
anything you know about Rome, you know because of Christians

[Anonymous No.19942308]

>>19942281
>Because they believe he did, just like priests of Ammon
They testified to SEEING Him with their own eyes, eating and drinking with Him, being taught by Him, and then, in the sight of numerous others, witnessing Him ascend into heaven. If they did not see that, they would be "liars" - and why would they lie to obtain for themselves the rewards of brutal torture and death, so that they speedily could be punished in hell for all eternity by their God for lying and leading the children of Israel astray. If they did not lie (eg. they really believed they saw these things), what made them so sure?

[Anonymous No.19942316]

>>19942276
What the fuck are you babbling about
>>19942280
>to obtain for themselves the rewards of brutal torture and death
Source: dude trust me, t. Paul

[Anonymous No.19942318]

>>19942293
>the Christians do have hesychasm
I have literally only heard this term on /lit/ and am highly skeptical of it.

[Anonymous No.19942323]

>>19942306
Is i-made-this.jpg really your best response to what was the main criticism of Christianity for the first 200 years it existed?

[Anonymous No.19942326]

>>19942316
Source: Josephus for James, source: persecutions of Christians under Nero during the lifetime of the apostles, source: beheading of St. Paul and execution of St. Peter in Rome as accepted historical facts by even secular scholars

[Anonymous No.19942328]

>>19942318
No, I know some Orthodox and it's a real thing. Practiced by a tiny minority of people (none of which are epistemological weight larpers since they actually have genuine faith), but it's real.

[Anonymous No.19942332]

>>19942308
Why would they be punished? If they believe it then they aren't lying. God doesn't punish you for spreading his majesty. Why are they correct while the other priests are dishonest or delusional?

[Anonymous No.19942335]

>>19942328
The Latin Catholics have similar mystical practices - Teresa of Avila & John of the Cross' contemplative mysticism, Augustinian Neoplatonist meditation for union, etc.

[Anonymous No.19942344]

>>19942323
> the main criticism of Christianity for the first 200 years it existed?
being squabbling anti-romans?
>>19942316
the Prime Mover is not a thing

[Anonymous No.19942345]

>>19942326
>source: christians
Yeah a guy got executed, big deal. This proves your jew rose from the dead somehow. You are the most tedious person I ever came across and I personally know jehovah's witnesses

[Anonymous No.19942349]

>>19942332
>Why would they be punished?
If they were lying (eg. they knew they didn't see Him risen, but testified that they did), they would not only be bearing false witness, but would be attempting to lead to children of Israel into idolatry - both making one liable to Gehenna. If they believe it, the question is, why did they believe it?

[Anonymous No.19942355]

>>19942344
>the Prime Mover is not a thing
I agree, thomism is bullshit

[Anonymous No.19942357]

>>19942345
Yeah, Josephus is a notorious Christian, as was Tacitus recording the persecution of Christians under Nero during the time of the apostles. You sure got me there.

[Anonymous No.19942361]

>>19942349
>>19942357
See >>19942031

[Anonymous No.19942365]

>>19942328
>>19942335
Well from what I gather, and this is true of all Christian mysticism, if what you 'experience' isn't described correctly you are heretical or being seduced by demons. So we are back to the same creed-affirming dogmas but just in a more esoteric dressing. There's no elaborated jñana system or mandalas or whatever else. It's as if room had to be made for meditative practice in spite of the lower-case orthodoxy, because they are somewhat effective in a universal sense, not because they are part and parcel of Christianity

[Anonymous No.19942366]

>>19942355
still more likely than your inconsistent interdependent causal chain

[Anonymous No.19942377]

>>19942365
Yeah they call it prelest. The entire religion is founded around blind dogmatism and fear, frankly it's disgusting.

[Anonymous No.19942383]

>>19942366
It's perfectly consistent, unlike your ad hoc "uuuh everything is caused except this uncaused thing" garbage.

[Anonymous No.19942397]

>>19942361
Be more clear. Are you saying, "for the purpose of argument, let's assume that Jesus rose from the dead and appeared to the apostles - so what"? If so, just confirm so I don't waste time, and I'll be happy to explain further.

>>19942365
It's less that you are heretical or being seduced, but that, just as in Buddhism or Hinduism, experiences of the mystical variety during meditation should be viewed with extreme skepticism, as they often tempt one into pride over their "spiritual progress". However, there are innumerable examples of Christian mystics who are also saints, who recorded their mystical experiences and what they derived from them. The Cross is the mandala, and meditation was a core component of the system in East and West from the very beginning. St. Paul talks about being taken up into the third heaven where he received mystical revelations that he was told not to share, Revelation is a mystical experience during a meditation "in the spirit on the Lord's day", etc.

[Anonymous No.19942399]

>>19942349
But they are already rejecting those doctrines in order to be bacchants of the new god, and drink his wine at nocturnal gatherings outlawed by the civil authorities, in hopes that they be nailed up like he was and sent to paradise. So they don't fear punishment, not by the government, and not from the old god either

[Anonymous No.19942408]

>>19942383
>how do you know everything is interdependent?
>because this Indian dude said so
>how do you know he's right, and not this other Indian dude?
>i don't
Checkmate Christians

[Anonymous No.19942416]

>>19942397
>St. Paul talks about being taken up into the third heaven where he received mystical revelations that he was told not to share
need to see the sauce, boss

[Anonymous No.19942428]

>>19942416
"Although there is nothing to gain, I will go on to visions and revelations from the Lord. I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven. Whether it was in the body or out of it I do not know, but God knows. And I know that this man—whether in the body or out of it I do not know, but God knows— was caught up to Paradise. The things he heard were too sacred for words, things that man is not permitted to tell.
5I will boast about such a man, but I will not boast about myself, except in my weaknesses. Even if I wanted to boast, I would not be a fool, because I would be speaking the truth. But I refrain, so no one will credit me with more than he sees in me or hears from me, 7or because of these surpassingly great revelations.

So to keep me from becoming conceited, I was given a thorn in my flesh, a messenger of Satan, to torment me. Three times I pleaded with the Lord to take it away from me. But He said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for My power is perfected in weakness.” Therefore I will boast all the more gladly in my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may rest on me. That is why, for the sake of Christ, I delight in weaknesses, in insults, in hardships, in persecutions, in difficulties. " (2 Cor 12)

[Anonymous No.19942431]

Even if the testimonies are reliable (doubtful), nothing indicates they weren't made by liars, delusional cultists, or both.
Even if they were made in earnest and Jesus actually rose from the dead, nothing indicates this somehow suggests he is God or that the current interpretation of Christianity that survived (as opposed to the sects that died) is true.
The second argument especially is irrefutable. There is no proof that Jesus was anything else than a magician with siddhis.
You can squeal all you want about it but it's true: in the East, people claiming miracles would barely be acknowledged because their religions are not centered around superstitions — to be more clear, their religions are centered around metaphysical inquiry, while Christianity is centered around jewish myths and post-hoc rationalizing with aristotelian metaphysics.
The dharmic religions find truth and build a system around it; the abrahamists build a system then distort reality to make their system into the truth.

[Anonymous No.19942438]

>>19942408
>how do you know there's a first cause?
>because this greek dude said so
>how do you know he's right, and not this other greek dude?
>i don't
Checkmate pajeets

[Anonymous No.19942449]

I don't believe in christianity because it has shitty aesthetics

[Anonymous No.19942451]

>>19942399
The Bacchan/Dionysian connection is completely derided by scholars. Wine was a common part of Hebrew life, and they only started gathering at night because they were being persecuted. They were breaking no Hebrew laws, because they testified that they had seen Jesus was the Messiah who rose from the dead and stayed with them for ~40 days before ascending into heaven in their sign, and that to follow His commands were worth dying for from the pagan authorities. But why did they believe these things had happened, again?

[Anonymous No.19942463]

>>19942431
>the second argument especially is irrefutable.
Just to be clear, you no longer have any rebuttals to the resurrection being the most rational explanation of the events which occurred, right? If you are out of rebuttals, we can move on to debating the second question.

[Anonymous No.19942470]

>>19942463
>you no longer have any rebuttals to the resurrection
Of course I do but you keep plugging your ears so let's hear the rest of your bullshit.

[Anonymous No.19942476]

>>19942470
I'm not going to waste my time on arguing for premise 2 if you don't accept premise 1. What is your next rebuttal for premise 1?

[Anonymous No.19942491]

>>19942476
I accept your concession then.

[Anonymous No.19942494]

Thanks for the (mostly) good discussions, guys. I hope you know that I only do this because I love you all, and want you to go to heaven. My apologies if I came off as rude or arrogant - I have many personality flaws. If you believe in God, please pray for me. Look forward to the next time we can come closer to the truth with each other sometime in the future. =)

[Anonymous No.19942504]

>>19942451
Gathering at night was illegal under Roman civil law. This is why it was so easy to bring charges against Christians. Pliny was told not to hunt them down but to try them if they were reported non-anonymously

[Anonymous No.19942506]

>>19942280
>What? You can use all relevant sources. It's a historical analysis.
How can you not get this when I explicitly told you? I'm saying, IMAGINE IF we didn't have non-mormon sources because they got lost, they didn't get transcribed, they were destroyed, whatever. How would you explain the 3 witnesses and then the 8 witnesses? Similarly to the delusional cult of believers in a false messiah/apocalyptic prophet name Jesus.
>Yeah, there's surely no reason to suspect
I literally copy-pasted you a bit of text that tells you that they were estranged and yet they didn't recant their testimony, you idiot.

[Anonymous No.19942515]

>>19942494
>gets blown the fuck out
>runs away like a coward
That's right brainlet, know your place.

[Anonymous No.19942521]

>>19942428
Hmmm. Interesting evidence of the practices existing and being tacitly allowed in the early communities.

[Anonymous No.19942523]

>>19942075
Still waiting for a reply to this.

[Anonymous No.19942529]

>>19942431
>guy leaves the thread right after this
kek

[Anonymous No.19942538]

>>19942506
You copy pasted about the Whitmers (the family of one of the three witnesses, with reasons to doubt his testimony), and I was talking about the Smiths.

>>19942515
I'll pray for you, brother. We're at 407 posts. We don't have much time. Try not to be so upset.
>>19942075
This one got lost in the sauce and I didn't see it, if you want, please copy it into a notepad and post it next time you see the christer guy seething about me. I look forward to continuing the conversation, you were one of the most pleasant and rational people I discussed with. God bless fren

[Anonymous No.19942539]

>>19942523
There is none because no matter how hard the dude tries to make christianity seem like a purely rational and logic-derived religion, the fact remains that it hinges entirely on faith and that he has no proof whatsoever of the existence of God, let alone of the alleged events of the gospels.

[Anonymous No.19942545]

>>19942538
You're wasting your life autistically arguing for a dying cult on an anime imageboard.

[Anonymous No.19942549]

>>19942431
Keep in mind that Judaism too doesn't care about miracles that much if the message that is brought to the jewish people contradicts previous scriptures. This is explicitly taught in Judaism.
For example, human sacrifice is abominable, therefore the messiah being sacrificed would be abominable. Children suffering for the sins of their parents is wrong, therefore original sin is wrong. And so on and so forth.
The jews were perfectly right in refuting Christ as the messiah, given all the unfulfilled prophecies, straight up contradictions, and (to them) blasphemies.
Now don't get me wrong, Jews are still delusional for other reasons, but they're at least coherent.

[Anonymous No.19942558]

This entire shitshow could've been avoided if the epistemological schizo had read the skeptics.

[Anonymous No.19942561]

>>19942539
I don't believe it is purely rational and logic-derived. There is a leap of faith to be made, but you can make that chasm smaller and smaller until it is as simple as going from "it seems that the most likely explanation for the resurrection appearances is that Jesus resurrected" to "therefore I have faith that Jesus resurrected". Faith is supernatural, it is a gift that you can receive by seeking, but if the whole idea seems completely irrational (eg. you don't even believe in God), you are probably not going to ask God. That's why I do this.

>>19942545
I do other things in my life, that's why I was gone for quite a while. But thanks for caring. I do it because I love you. I know that when I was anti-Christ, I also derided the arguments I heard - after I humbled myself and let God in, I realized my position was retarded all along. I guess to you, I went from "based" to retarded, because we probably would have agreed on everything if we talked a few years ago.

[Anonymous No.19942566]

>>19942538
You probably won't do it but if you are actually interested in counter-arguments to the resurrection and not pretending, you should read this >>19942087, I would like to know which counter arguments you'd come up with

[Anonymous No.19942577]

>>19942561
>therefore I have faith that Jesus resurrected
Not him but I do. I just don't think he's God.

[Anonymous No.19942578]

>>19942561
>"it seems that the most likely explanation for the resurrection appearances is that Jesus resurrected"
Well by the time you accept something like that you're probably retarded so I guess taking a leap of faith is easy.

[Anonymous No.19942583]

>>19942566
I am interested, and I was interested in the Holographic Universe for a long time when I was more new-age. If you really recommend that book, I will put it into my reading list, which is already quite long. I'll take your word and give it a chance. Thanks for the rec

>>19942577
So what, are you Arian? Gnostic? Wish we had more time in this thread, I love talking to people with interesting perspectives.

[Anonymous No.19942586]

>>19942561
>I realized my position was retarded all along.
You should acknowledge, like some Christians do, that some people have had experiences different from yours and that these experiences have brought them to other beliefs. These people are not dishonest, they're not prideful, they're not "avoiding God", and yet they have arrived to a conclusion different from yours.

[Anonymous No.19942589]

>>19937801
if there is no absolute then every definition by nature is rendered meaningless

[Anonymous No.19942598]

>>19942583
>So what, are you Arian? Gnostic?
No, I'm an subjective idealist.

[Anonymous No.19942608]

>>19942583
>I'll take your word and give it a chance.
Just make sure to focus on the essence of the argument (holographic theory as an alternative to most belief systems) and not on the author's new agey interpretations of the theory.

[Anonymous No.19942622]

>>19940866
>Your chance is now.
Isn't final judgment the final chance?

[Anonymous No.19942631]

>>19942558
Most threads on /lit/ could be avoided if anons read the skeptics.

[Anonymous No.19942649]

>>19942586
>You should acknowledge, like some Christians do, that some people have had experiences different from yours and that these experiences have brought them to other beliefs.
Trust me, I do acknowledge this, because it happened to me. I had a mystical experience which I thought testified to the reality of syncretism and universalism. I'm sure many people have had similar experiences. But I unequivocally, and by faith, wholeheartedly believe that if any person legitimately seeks and continues seeking, never stopping seeking at any particular viewpoint, they will be led to Jesus Christ as the Way, the Truth, and the Life. That's partially why I still spend time trying to hear out the best apologists representing people who disagree with me, because I still ask God to lead me into all truth, and I'm still open to being proved wrong with new evidence or arguments, but so far it appears to me that there is nobody who has even come close to rebutting apostolic Christianity (and specifically, Catholicism). But I could be wrong, and perhaps the Oriental Orthodox are right. I doubt it, but I'm open to hearing arguments!
Not my blog, so I'll stop.

>>19942622
Final judgment is the moment when it's too late to change where your soul was at, but in reference to that anon, I find that the whole idea of "second chances" in divine judgment is silly. It can also lead to pretty toxic viewpoints, such as that one can sin/transgress against dharma in this life because they will have another chance, and "samsara" doesn't seem so bad when I'm doing mushrooms. I take the perspective that this IS our chance, and we should treat this life as if it is our only opportunity to avoid the negative afterlife.

[Anonymous No.19942666]

>>19942649
Is hell eternal suffering or obliteration? I've read the two viewpoints.

[Anonymous No.19942695]

>>19942666
The most patristically supported position is that Hell is eternal suffering analogous to fire. I personally tend to take the viewpoint that it is that spiritual state of souls that remain attached to the material world yet disconnected by God's grace through mortal sin, and are unable to repent, but recognize that God is real, and that He is all that is good, true, and beautiful. Like being stuck at home when you hear a beautiful and wholesome party going on next door. Annihilationism isn't really accepted by many members of apostolic Churches, you're more likely to find universalism, especially in the "Orthodox" communions (eg. David Bentley Hart). I personally think it's heresy, but apparently you can hold it and be in good standing in the EO.

[Anonymous No.19942706]

>>19942649
What do you make of the idea that all belief systems have been manipulated to trick people into believing and that the truth is that the light after death is a trap that erases your memory and makes you come back here and that the only way to escape is to not be tied to a belief system but remain skeptical and avoid the light after death?
I like this /x/ hypothesis because it turns the entire set of religious dogmas on its head and creates a new paradigm: that it is dogmatism itself that is the trap, i.e. the more your system makes sense and is the capital t Truth to you, the more "damned" you are.

[Anonymous No.19942712]

>>19942695
Alright, thanks for explaining. That's too bad, I wanted obliteration

[Anonymous No.19942728]

>>19942706
I think that while it is an interesting possibility, if you make that argument, the burden of proof is on you to prove that literally every single belief system has been manipulated, and I highly doubt that somebody could make that case for every system. Further, after that, you'd have to prove that the whole life-after-death-is-a-trap scenario is more likely than the alternatives, which is a Herculean task in and of itself. Overall, it's about as compelling and interesting to me as the multiverse theory - curious, but ultimately too little positive evidence to really consider as being a live option

>>19942712
No problem, bro. Obliteration seems okay, but it also comforts me to know that the incredibly evil people like Kim Jong Un, who think they are beyond reproach and invincible because of the control and power they have, will receive some sort of just punishment beyond non-existence. It comforts me to know that nobody goes to Hell except those who actually deserve it, and that my culturally-attuned morality is far inferior to God's.

[Anonymous No.19942730]

>>19942649
>it appears to me that there is nobody who has even come close to rebutting apostolic Christianity
Porphyry, Celsus and Julian were mentioned ITT. But it's a religion, it's not meant to be rebutted: either believed in, or rejected. As shown by your stance on Jesus being the final stop for truth no matter what, while believers of other religions would laugh at that and call you misguided or say you're not seeking hard enough. Frankly I think it's all tiresome and that if anything the Taoists were right.

[Anonymous No.19942736]

>>19942449
Try again

[Anonymous No.19942747]

>>19942728
>It comforts me to know that nobody goes to Hell except those who actually deserve it
But I will go to Hell according to your worldview because I'm not Christian and don't want to be.
Just punishment is also a bold claim since nobody really deserves eternal suffering. Only someone who could make an innocent person suffer eternally would themselves deserve the same thing if we were to look at it from an utilitarian eye for an eye kind of mindset.

[Anonymous No.19942752]

>>19942730
>Porphyry, Celsus and Julian were mentioned ITT.
Porphyry was refuted by Augustine, Celsus by Origen, and Julian by God for when he tried to rebuild the Synagogue of Satan's temple to spite us
>The Taoists were right
Have you read Christ the Eternal Tao?

[Anonymous No.19942765]

>>19942728
>the burden of proof
Well that's the thing right? If they were manipulated by higher entities you'd be hard pressed to prove it. Actually this theory is seeing a revival because of various remote viewing projects from different places that have come to the same conclusion, which is uncanny at least. I don't really believe in it although I do keep it in mind as a possibility, but it does serve as a good thought experiment on dogmatism.

[Anonymous No.19942768]

>>19942649
>one can sin/transgress against dharma in this life because they will have another chance
Buddhists don't actually believe this, you just hate hippies' bad reading of it. In your next birth you may not have the opportunities for practice that you have now, your conditions may be worse, etc. Afterlives are not understood as a license for hedonism in this life

[Anonymous No.19942780]

>>19942752
>Christ the Eternal Tao?
I meant Taoism in the purest sense, in how it inspired Zen. Nothing to seek, nothing to grasp, reality just "is", there's nothing more to it. All our systems and frameworks of understanding are superfluous and distract from the flow of existence.
I don't mean Tao as Logos etc that's just another layer of ideology and dogma, it misses the point of the Tao by the way.
I like simplicity.

[Anonymous No.19942783]

>>19942752
Apparently the refutations weren't good enough and the source texts were themselves banned and burned

[Anonymous No.19942789]

>>19942736
The aesthetics suck from start to finish
The art, the names, the mythology, everything. It's bland and uninteresting

[Anonymous No.19942799]

>>19942736
What's the deal with wanting everything to burn? Were these writers just the ancient world's equivalent of looters and rioters?

[Anonymous No.19942807]

>>19941034
This kills the ideologue

[Anonymous No.19942809]

>>19937644
OP here, why was a thread about perspectivism filled with so many different things?...

[Anonymous No.19942821]

>>19942807
STFO, nobody takes posmodernism seriously.

[Anonymous No.19942830]

This thread has convinced me that I should become a skeptic

[Anonymous No.19942839]

>>19942821
There is nothing about postmodernism in that post, seething brainlet. You're out of your depth.

[Anonymous No.19942847]

>>19942449
(?)

[Anonymous No.19942857]

>>19942847
Tacky and soulless

[Anonymous No.19942871]

>>19942728
What do you make of the thousands of NDEs where people realize there is no true religion and that the afterlife is amazing regardless? See nderf.org

[Anonymous No.19942917]

>>19938166
>>19941004
Aristotle was a moralistic monotheist who disliked polygamy and came to compare homosexuality to eating dirt, while he was living in a society where homosexuality, polytheism, atheism and monogamy were accepted things. If this isn't proto-Catholic, I don't know what is.

[Anonymous No.19942928]

>>19942857
>tacky
Lol

>souless
Are you mentally ill?

[Anonymous No.19942973]

>>19942747
Not necessarily, you could have a mental illness is reducing your culpability, or you could currently be on the path to seeking and die suddenly, and God, knowing that you eventually would have come to the truth had you kept seeking, could choose to allow you into the mystical body of Christ through baptism of desire - or that perhaps if you would have known the essential nature of being joined to the Church, you would have joined it. We can't definitely pronounce that anybody is in Hell, only that some people are in heaven. I would say that simply rejecting the doctrine without actually being convinced is not concrete enough grounds to say you will be eternally damned, although we know that the majority of people will be damned as per Jesus' narrow way discourse. An example I think is helpful for invincible ignorance & culpability is the a situation like this:
Some Mesoamericans were colonized, and in the initial warfare, might have seen their countrymen killed and their women taken as concubines, while the Spaniards who did so are simultaneously proclaiming that they must accept Christ and His Church or be damned. Now, the Spaniards are saying true things, but because their actions are making their claims so uncompelling, I think it would be reasonable for the Mesoamerican in question to reject the Church given the evidence that they've seen, and we hope they might still be saved.

Now, that doesn't mean that I am advocating for you to stay where you are. The most I can advocate for is that you keep seeking, and consciously open yourself up to be led by God even if He takes you places where you don't want to go, or which would make you radically change your life. It's worth it to follow Him.
>Just punishment is also a bold claim since nobody really deserves eternal suffering
On what moral basis do you stand on to make this proclamation? Statements like these, while understandable, inevitably make me think of God's words to Job in the whirlwind. Theodicy is, to me, like a child telling his grandfather why he should be able to stay up all night and skip school without being grounded.

[Anonymous No.19943018]

>>19942768
Well, I mean, technically, they do believe that you can sin in this life and have another chance. They probably wouldn't phrase it like that, but it is a true consequences of their belief system.
>>19942780
Tao is literally the exact same principle as Logos in a different language though, same with Dharma.
>>19942871
I had a mystical experience that made me realize the same thing. I now dismiss it as delusion combined with preconceived biases being externalized to rationalize what happened. The mystical place is hard to describe, and you have to be really nuanced about it - the Tao that can be named, and all that. I think, in general, an individual's subjective interpretation of a mystical experience cannot be a legitimate means to acquire knowledge, otherwise you enter epistemological Hell where everybody's subjective Truth is true, and therefore the competing conclusions reached from myriads of mystical experiences mean that everything is both true and false, and you can just pick whatever tickles your fancy. You need both receptive (mystical) and active (rational) principles to come to Truth, in my opinion.

[Anonymous No.19943059]

>>19942220
>It is logically impossible for there to be an infinite set of anything, including moments in time
Even if physical infinite entities do not exist (which Hilbert's Hotel doesn't prove), a physical, material "thing" is wildly different from an event in time, and Hilbert's "paradox" doesn't adress infinite events in time.
Going back to your original argument:
>How could somebody actually believe that a hotel could, hypothetically, exist in reality, which is completely full and yet can accommodate untold infinites of new guests just by moving people around?
That's a property of infinity, inf + 1 = inf, inf*2 = inf, etc. If an infinite entity existed in the real world, such properties would be expected from it.
>the universe is expanding, sure, but it is currently a discrete volume that is growing, not an "infinite" volume
Source: your ass
For all purposes it is infinite, and most physicists believe that's the case. The universe acts like an infinite entity too: it expands everywhere with no preferential direction, and it's full of itself yet you can "add +1" or "multiply it by 2" and it's still full.

Also, you didn't answer this: if infinite entities are ontologically impossible, doesn't that mean that an infinite god is an impossibility?

[Anonymous No.19943076]

>>19942917
Wasn't he a materialist? Not necessarily in the modern sense, but as far as I recall he didn't believe in a single omnipotent God like Christianity does.

[Anonymous No.19943094]

>>19942789
I dont like or believe in Christianity but I dont see how you can dislike their aesthetic. I mean come on they've got gothic cathedrals.

[Anonymous No.19943213]

>>19943059
>Even if physical infinite entities do not exist (which Hilbert's Hotel doesn't prove)
I know that, and I repeatedly stressed that throughout this thread.
>a physical, material "thing" is wildly different from an event in time,
I'm not not talking about "things", but a series of temporal events. Hilbert's Hotel shows that while concepts and operations in the abstract are perfectly logically consistent according to mathematical principles, those same concepts and operations might not be instantiable in the physical world. As Hilbert himself said, "The role that remains for the infinite to play is solely that of an idea." (Philosophy of Mathematics, 151).
>Source: your ass
The volume and mass of the universe as we can observe it are limited to the observable universe, but among physicists and astronomers, there have been many efforts to estimate the size of the universe as a whole, and the matter is, on the whole, not settled. There is no evidence, or at least no evidence that is accepted in the overall astronomical community, to show that it is of an "infinite" volume (but there are estimates of its finite size based on several methodologies).
> if infinite entities are ontologically impossible
I don't believe infinite entities are ontologically impossible - I believe (along with Hilbert and many other philosophers of mathematics) that there cannot be an instantiation of an actually infinite set in our material universe.

[Anonymous No.19943327]

>>19943213
>I'm not not talking about "things", but a series of temporal events
The Hilbert hotel, in your interpretation, can only attempt to prove that infinite physical entities cannot exist, and events in time are not physical entities.
Hilbert is not infallible, google Gödel.

The observable universe is but a limit on the information that can reach us from other parts of the universe, not a real boundary. There's no evidence of a physical barrier where the universe ends.
You're wrongfully conflating two ideas of universe, and any measurement is of the observable one, not the entire universe
>I don't believe infinite entities are ontologically impossible - I believe (along with Hilbert and many other philosophers of mathematics) that there cannot be an instantiation of an actually infinite set in our material universe
Didn't god instantiate himself when he came to Earth as Jesus?

[Anonymous No.19943404]

>>19943327
>Hilbert is not infallible, google Gödel.
I'm not claiming that Hilbert is infallible. I am claiming that the position I hold is a well-known and not at all controversial opinion in the field of mathematical philosophy. It can't be derided for being unorthodox, or based on a lack of understanding. I would also argue that it is the only logical option of understanding how transfinite arithmetical concepts could possibly work in reality (eg. if the abstract properties and operations of transfinite arithmetic were able to be instantiated within the material universe, Hilbert's Hotel would be possible - the question is only IF they can be instantiated in the material universe without falling into logical contradiction or impossibility).
>not a real boundary.
I know.
>there's no evidence of a physical barrier where the universe ends.
I understand, I'm saying that within the astronomical community, it is a (not universally accepted, but still incredibly 'orthodox') opinion that one can make an estimate as to the volume of the universe itself, not just the observable universe. I can direct you to some papers, if you would like.
>Didn't god instantiate himself when he came to Earth as Jesus?
Jesus was not an instantiation of an infinite set of physical things. God is not a physical thing, nor is He a set of physical thing. The only thing I am contesting is whether or not an actually infinite set can be instantiated in our material universe.

[Anonymous No.19943477]

>>19937644
Yes, but the ST is too long and that is why you have so many posmodernists talking shit.

[Anonymous No.19943559]

>>19943076
>Wasn't he a materialist?
He and Aquinas were hylomorphists, the suggestion that “matter is all that exists” of modern materialism becomes simply incoherent on a hylemorphic conception of matter. He also did say that there can be forms without matter, and thus immaterial substances (like souls). So, no, he wasn't a materialist, he was in fact an anti-materialism in the Platonic sense.

>he didn't believe in a single omnipotent God like Christianity does.
He did believe in a single omnipotent God, not like mainstream Christianity, but like a deist does.

[Anonymous No.19943651]

>>19941190
lol

[Anonymous No.19943667]

>>19943404
>I am claiming that the position I hold is a well-known and not at all controversial opinion in the field of mathematical philosophy.
>I would also argue that it is the only logical option of understanding how transfinite arithmetical concepts could possibly work in reality
Sure it has to be a philosophical stance on some important field, I'll take some recs if you have some, but that's beside the point. The question is simpler: how does the Hilbert Paradox adress time events, if it was clearly referring to a hypothetical physical object? You are stating that: if spatial infinite objects are impossible, then infinite time events are impossible, which doesn't follow for they are different categories.
>it is an incredibly 'orthodox' opinion that one can make an estimate as to the volume of the universe itself, not just the observable universe
That's not true, all it takes is a simple "is the universe infinite?" google search to convince yourself that most scientists think it is either unknowable or that it is in fact infinite. I'd like to read those papers if you have them though.
>Jesus was not an instantiation of an infinite set of physical things. God is not a physical thing, nor is He a set of physical thing.
Alright, I get it, thanks for clarifying

[Anonymous No.19943759]

>>19937644
Bump

[Anonymous No.19943765]

>>19943759
Lmao

[Anonymous No.19943767]

>>19943667
> I'll take some recs if you have some, but that's beside the point.
I would recommend Philosophy of Mathematics by Paul Benacerraf and Putnam, you can get it on Libgen. It contains a pretty thorough treatment of this topic that has a wide range of perspectives.
>how does the Hilbert Paradox adress time events, if it was clearly referring to a hypothetical physical object?
Because it isn't talking about only physical objects - just like the Ship of Theseus thought experiment is actually talking about the dividing line between when something has changed in essence, the Hilbert's Hotel experiment is actually talking about whether the properties of transfinite arithmetical sets, which are logically possible according to abstract principles, can be instantiated in the material world (eg. an actually infinite series of past moments), or remain constrained to the realm of ideas. Hilbert took the latter position, as I already said.
>That's not true, all it takes is a simple "is the universe infinite?" google search to convince yourself that most scientists think it is either unknowable or that it is in fact infinite
The research is ongoing. It is in no way a consensus, and is the topic of much research. Expanding, yes, infinite, nobody knows.
>I'd like to read those papers if you have them though.
See https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007JCAP...01..004P/abstract and https://academic.oup.com/mnrasl/article/413/1/L91/1747653?login=false.. Also, somewhat related, even Hawking, who co-authored the no-Boundary proposal (which this paper is responding to), admits that in his understanding, "[...] the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago".
>Alright, I get it, thanks for clarifying
No problem, thanks for being charitable in this discussion

[Anonymous No.19943847]

>>19940607
>Except the existence of an actual series of infinite events in reality is completely illogical.
Aquinas didn’t think so. He thought it was completely logically possible, but he thought it wasn’t the case since revelation had proved otherwise.

[Anonymous No.19943853]

>>19940607
>A logical proof is genuine evidence
I have seen convincing logical proofs that a benevolent God and free will is impossible.

[Anonymous No.19943889]

>>19943847
I know that some radtrads treat St. Thomas like he's the Catholic Muhammad, but we are allowed to disagree with him. He might be right, but I hold that there is good reason to believe that it is impossible.
>>19943853
Feel free to put it forward, and we can discuss it. If you find it convincing, we should scrutinize it. I'd be interested to hear.

[Anonymous No.19943958]

>>19940866
>If you disagree about God even existing, I'm not going to waste time talking about Christianity with you. Until you accept God, you will probably never accept Christianity.
Not that guy but logical arguments (which every wrong philosophical school has invented and promulgated since antiquity) are nowhere near as convincing as empirical evidence of the sort that Christianity, as a revealed religion, presumably thinks it has. A miracle is much more compelling than sophistry.

[Anonymous No.19943986]

>>19943958
I'd be interested in contributing to a future thread about the modes of credibility of apostolic Christianity. You're right, there are so many miracles that it's almost impossible to enumerate them.

[Anonymous No.19944010]

>>19941950
Infinite regress is right

[Anonymous No.19944013]

>>19943767
>I would recommend Philosophy of Mathematics by Paul Benacerraf and Putnam, you can get it on Libgen
Thanks, I'll take a look.
>Because it isn't talking about only physical objects
But the example he uses only contends with a subtype of those sets, the physical ones, but claims the general validity, and I disagree on that (I also don't think that infinite with the impossibility of infinite physical objects but we've already discussed that and it's getting circular). A broken instantiation of one type of set may not generalize to all sets.
https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007JCAP...01..004P/abstract and https://academic.oup.com/mnrasl/article/413/1/L91/1747653?login=false..

Thanks for the papers. Haven't read them in detail, but judging by the results and discussion, the sizes given are lower bounds *if* it is finite, which says pretty much nothing. The potential cutoff at the Planck density and the problems it poses is more interesting in any case.
The best guess still is "unknown", but the observed flatness of the universe suggests an unbounded nature, even if that isn't much evidence.
>Also, somewhat related, even Hawking, who co-authored the no-Boundary proposal (which this paper is responding to), admits that in his understanding, "[...] the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago"
Doesn't change the fact that GR breaks at extremely comprised, dense and highly energetic mediums, as the "early" universe once was. It can predict an initial instant, a magnetic monopole, negative mass, a unicorn, and it doesn't matter if it is not an accurate model for such a state. That requires QM to have a better chance at describing that epoch.
>No problem, thanks for being charitable in this discussion
I wasn't at the start (sorry), but you are not being dishonest, so I might as well have a pleasant discussion

[Anonymous No.19944035]

>>19944013
>extremely comprised
*extremely compressed