/lit/ - Literature

Have Thomas Aquinas 5 ways ever been refuted properly by the fedoras?
The only arguments i've ever seen against them have been:

>How do you know your God is the right god
(Shifting the Goalposts and ultimately a useless argument against Perennialists)

>It's just a pseudo Intellectual word salad
(also not an argument, atleasy say what specifically is wrong with Aquinas arguments)
So ITT: Since God's existence has been Proved Metaphysically/Philosophically, Fedoras now need to disprove God, and refute Thomas Aquinas's 5 ways, a Summary of them is in the thread

>>14197251
>Why do you feel as if Shankara's writings are more truthful than Abrahamic religion?
It's hard to explain, you'll really just have to read him yourself to find out why. If I had to answer though, it's that I agree with the arguments raised by different Platonic, Christian, Muslim, Hindu etc thinkers for the existence of God and I agree that the notion that the universe could appear by chance or for no reason is nonsensical. God or the One is really the only thing that explains why there is something instead of nothing and why there is so much pre-established harmony. At the same time I disagreed with the notion of the Abrahamic God as being someone with preferences, wishes etc who involves himself in the affairs of earth, destroyed cities etc. Advaita for me satisfies all the requirements of a conception of God that could explain why there is a universe but without all the baggage that comes with viewing the Biblical God as that being. Additionally, he is a very compelling dialectician and I found myself agreeing with all his arguments that he uses against the various devils-advocate opponents whom Shankara debates in his writings. There was also that when I paid really close attention I found that what Shankara wrote about the nature and phenomenology of consciousness, awareness and the mind remained true to my actual experience and accurately described how I perceive and interact with the universe. At a certain point it starts to become self-evident that what he is saying is true.

Have Thomas Aquinas 5 ways ever been refuted properly by the fedoras?
The only arguments i've ever seen against them have been:

>How do you know your God is the right god
(Shifting the Goalposts and ultimately a useless argument against Perennialists)

>It's just a pseudo Intellectual word salad
(also not an argument, atleasy say what specifically is wrong with Aquinas arguments)
So ITT: Since God's existence has been Proved Metaphysically/Philosophically, Fedoras now need to disprove God, and refute Thomas Aquinas's 5 ways, a Summary of them is in the thread

I just don't understand why people are still reading philosophy or taking stuff like epistemology, ontology, or theology seriously in light of modern science. is it just ignorance of the advances?

everything previously assigned to the domain of philosophy or religion has literally all been explained by scientific fields such as genetics, evolutionary biology, evolutionary psychology, and physics/theoretical physics. we have literally proven that consciousness comes AFTER neurological activity and that genes are basically the root of everything that a person is from what color their hair is to what sort of breakfast cereal they will prefer

pic related. the book that convinced me that all non-science systems that attempt an explanation of existence are in their final death throes.

The metaphysical arguments for God explain reality better than anything atheists have come up with. So why is the West increasingly atheist/areligious? Were people conned into not taking these arguments seriously?