/lit/ - Literature

Let us discuss Catholic literature. I just began reading the Summa of the Summa. Really good stuff so far.

>>21744298
>no physical evidence of God acting,
*blocks your path*

>>20116239
5 ways? More like 5 weighs lol

I agree

How do the 5 ways stand up to modern philosophical scrutiny?

>>16922000
Use a better icon than from monasteryicons my g. They're cringe

>>16565429
1. We see things changing.
2. Anything changing is being changed by something else .
>Things changing are on the way to realisation, whereas things causing change are already realised - they are realising something else’s potential, and for that they must themselves be real.
>The actual heat of a fire causes wood, already able to be hot, to actually become heated, and so causes change in the wood.
>The actually hot cannot at the same time be potentially hot, but only potentially cold - So what causes changes cannot as such be causing the change but must be being changed by something else.
3.This something else, if itself changing, is being changed by yet another thing: and this last by another.
4. However, we must stop somewhere, otherwise there will be no first cause of change, and, as a result, no subsequent causes (to posit infinite regress is akin to homunculus fallacy).
>Only when acted upon by a first cause do intermediate causes produce a change - without the force from the hand holding the, the stick will subsequently not move anything else.
5. We arrive then at some first cause not itself being changed by anything, and this, is what all men speak of as God.

NOTE: AQUINAS DID NOT BELIEVE THAT AN INFINITE SERIES OF TEMPORAL CAUSES WAS IMPOSSIBLE. IN FACT HE THOUGHT THAT PEOPLE WHO CLAIMED THIS WERE MAKING AN UNSUBSTANTIATED ASSERTION.

AQUINAS BELIEVED, RATHER, THAT AN INFINITE *HIERARCHY* OF ACTIVE, CONTINGENT CAUSES WAS IMPOSSIBLE.

I.E. IT IS POSSIBLE THAT THERE IS A SERIES OF CAUSES STRETCHING BACK INFINITELY INTO THE PAST, BUT NOT AN INFINITE HIERARCHY OF CAUSES ACTIVE IN THE PRESENT.

Was he the Rick & Morty of Christian theology?

>Okay,i give it to you.There is god,and he is perfect and eternal.but how do you prove that he is the god of abraham,issac and jacob?

what to do?

Who was a person who started with the Greeks and implemented that knowledge the best and why was it pic related?

Okay anons I'm considering purchasing a hard copy of this. I've been reading it in ebook format but I really want something durable and in Latin and English. I'm leaning towards the Aquinas Institute's edition, but there doesn't seem to be anyone with holy orders involved in its production. Does this matter? While I'm tempted by their impartiality, I can't help but feel this is a weakness. And can anyone tell me which are the standard or highly regarded translations of the Summa? Thanks and I'll be monitoring the thread.

>>10976331
well said

Is it even worth asking where to start with Aquinas? Is it even as if I would understand him?

What were Aquinas' views on Determinism?
Personally, I think determinism and indeterminism are the same thing.
I need to flesh out this idea and Aquinas is probably the only person able to do that for me.
Where does he talk about it?

Did this nerd get anything right?

>muh intelligent design

>mfw all the fideists in this thread

?

You have read the Summa, right /lit/? Don't tell me you skipped the greatest theological work to ever exist. not including the Holy Bible of course

>>8225041
Down with nominalism and voluntarism!!

>>8174327

>>8063935

>>7495648
If you take Aquinas at his word then all of his writings should sound incoherent if you're coming at them from a secular perspective.

"To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible."

Who are some of the best Christian philosophers?

Any book recommendations?