/lit/ - Literature

>>11700199

>>11700200
In this,
logic is faith(God).
Grammar is word (spirit).
Wisdom is love (Christ)

>>11700211
Jesus is the logos; word/logic.

>>11700199
are you having a stoke OP? Because you are typing nonsense

>>11700199
are you having a stroke OP? Because you are typing nonsense

>>11700247
No, Jesus uses word/logic. Spirit is the word.

>>11700199
A = X
B = X
A =/= B

this is a false equation, therefore you are categorically wrong OP

>>11700270
Read John 1:1.

>>11700272
God
Christ
Spirit is the logos, is it not?

>>11700277
It is not

>>11700276
Yes. Do you understand the trinity

>>11700282
I do not believe you.

>>11700283
If you're going to make a claim about something this fundamental to Christianity, you're going to need some kind of Biblical evidence, and don't let me hear about some kind of Roman Catholic sacred tradition, son. Sola Scriptura, baby.

>>11700299
Prove me wrong first off.

>>11700300
>>11700199
>prove me wrong
Stop making holy mysteries about yourself.

/thread

>>11700199
I mean Christ is the Logos, that does tie into mathematics.

>>11700270
Jesus is the divine Logos, what are you even saying

>>11700299
Sola scriptura is literally not scriptural and even contra-scripture

>>11700302
Okay I see what I did wrong now.

Rhetoric is love(Spirit)
Wisdom is faith(God)
Grammar is word(Christ)

>>11700300
John 1:14.

>>11700323
What else would you rely on?

>>11700325
>>11700324


>>11700330
it's faith alone, bible is merely guidance.

>>11700288
I believe me

>>11700324
Rhetoric is not love you simpleton. Instead of scrabbling in the dirt and making shit up, how about you read Scripture instead? Read Galatians 5, about the fruits of the Holy Spirit. I am inclined to agree faith is a product of wisdom, but it does not follow that wisdom is faith exclusively. Faith can come by other ways.
Again: stop. You're misrepresenting something beautiful. If you're going to seriously pursue these mysteries, try actually reading the book and understanding what you're talking about.

>Walking with christ is a step by step mathematical phenomenon.
No. Following after Christ is well documented in Scripture: sacrifice, love, forgiveness, righteous anger where love and logos are contradicted (as in the current scandal). In point of fact your misrepresention of Christ's message is a fallacy in need correction. Either provide some argument of how your statements do not contradict Scripture, or admit you're a pseud teenager who tried reading Hegel once.

>>11700368
>Christ is well documented in Scripture: sacrifice, love, forgiveness, righteous anger where love and logos are contradicted

These depict literal steps of coming to Christ, which a step-by-step phenomenon 'walking with Christ'

>>11700376
also this is using a system of theological beliefs, and evident by the use of the trinity.

>>11700376
>These depict literal steps of coming to Christ, which a step-by-step phenomenon 'walking with Christ'
Again, you're not being careful with your words. You're not thinking hard enough. You've said walking with Christ is a 'mathematical phenomenon' and a 'mathematical procedure'. Which is it?

You've ignored the implications of these claims. If "wisdom is faith" then "faith is wisdom". If "rhetoric is love" then "love is rhetoric". These are obviously false. Just stop. You're embarrassing yourself.

>>11700382
How's this wrong?
>If "wisdom is faith" then "faith is wisdom"
Also, this

>"rhetoric is love" then "love is rhetoric"

Not embarrassed, stop getting emotional over this argument, that is called projection.

>>11700330
Jesus Christ lmao
thus the Church (which is the Body of Christ).

How would early Christians subscribe to sola scriptura if no NT books were even written yet. Are they to stick only to the OT and deny Christ?

>>11700344
>faith alone
>James 2:24
>"See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone."
This is not Pelagianism, either. This is not saying "works alone," this speaks to how if faith does not bare any fruit, man will have shown to not justify himself to receive the gift of salvation.

What in tarnation are you people drinking

>>11700344
I actually don't disagree with you, but we have to be clear on what we're talking about. If we're talking about soteriology, then it's faith justified by works: Mark 5:34, Luke 17:19, Matthew 7:21 and 8:8-13.
If we're talking about having a firm foundation for sound doctrine and practice, then it's all about 2 Timothy 3:16.

>>11700386
Denying Faith alone; isn't Calvinistic, nor Catholic or Orthodox.

What kinda screwed idea do you have?

>>11700394
Works are given as graces of God. Faith is required for grace.

>>11700385
>Not embarrassed, stop getting emotional over this argument, that is called projection.
You're so careless with a topic you pretend to respect you're actually pissing me the fuck off.

>How's this wrong?
Lukewarm IQ confirmed. Did you read Galatians 5 like I told you to?

I've already explained how wisdom and faith are not the same. Words mean things. The translations you are proposing don't make sense. Look up the definition of rhetoric. Look up the definition of love. Here, I'll even post a picture for you. These words are not interchangeable. They cannot be exchanged for one another and retain the same meaning. The act of love and forgiveness as expressed in Gal 5:14 is independent of rhetoric. You have not thought carefully enough.

For the last time, stop making this about you.

>>11700401
What evidence would you cite to support that claim?
Also, out of curiosity, what denomination are you with?

>>11700396
It's orthodox and true. Scripture literally casts out "faith alone."

I sincerely do not mean this in a condescending way, but what kind of Christian are you?

When the men actively brought the paralytic to Christ in the beginning of Mark, Christ says "I see your faith." Faith is alive and active through the fruits that it bears. "Faith without works is dead," no? (James 2:26). I ask what kind of Christian you are, because you see the scripture that denies sola fide, yet persist in its legitimacy.

I am in no way, shape, or form denying the importance or gravity of faith, its requirement, and its beauty. I do recognize that salvation is not by "faith alone," and the scriptures agree with me.

>>11700386
When do you think Paul and the others were writing, exactly?

>>11700402
>You're so careless with a topic you pretend to respect you're actually pissing me the fuck off.
That is unchristian and I pray that you calm. I am merely trying to find the route for my Faith, You're the only disrespectful poster here.

>Lukewarm IQ confirmed.
>Did you read Galatians 5 like I told you to?
You're rhetoric is poor, how could you possibly fathom I could read the entire chapter in Galatians during mid argument.

Words mean things does not disprove my assertion that Faith and Wisdom are of the same.

Faith, is true wisdom, for it is the only way to God. Without it, you are truly unwise.

Do you know the story of the 3 wise men? How do you think they discovered Baby Jesus?

Simply devoid of all reason are you.

>>11700410
>>11700411
Presbyterian.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_fide

You guys really should understand Church Doctrine isn't the same as Gospel.

>>11700401
Works are not given as graces of God. Grace perfects nature, it does not cast a canvas over it. Grace requires the cooperation of man, for if he did not agree to receive his inheritance, it would not be sincere and evil for God to do, which is logically impossible for Him.

>>11700410
I think he is a Calvinist.

>>11700414
I'm not that guy, but to be fair Galatians 5 is a whopping 26 verses.

>>11700421
> Grace requires the cooperation of man
I agree, but Man can only take part in co-operation after taking faith in the Lord. If he did not, he would not understand the Lord, for he would not see the lord with Faith, as Christ see's them. Communion with Christ.

Works without faith is empty. That's why atheism will never really work.

>>11700414
It's a good thing for you that God's mercy is so great.

>>11700413
They were writing about one of the most integral parts of Christ's teachings. Faith holds great, great gravity. But I will tell you: Paul and the others do not teach "sola fide." They teach the immense importance of faith, to which I full heartedly agree, but it is impossible for you to prove that they taught that faith was the "only" requirement for grace.

Grace is received through faith, yes, but faith is dead without works (you can plant a tree, but if it does not bare fruit, it is worthless) as the scriptures tell us.

>>11700417
Why do you ignore scripture? James condemns this doctrine.

>>11700427
Grace is completely outside the realm of man.
It is God's and God's alone.

> For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God

Ephesians 2:8

>>11700417
I almost became Presbyterian out of my sheer love and admiration for Greg Bahnsen. As far as I've been able to determine though, it's just not scriptural and comes dangerously close to presenting a gospel other than the one in the Bible. It's not as bad as Anglicanism or Roman Catholicism, but it's still pretty bad imo.

>>11700422
Fine let's break it down.

>It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.
Christ allows freedom, but Forgiveness is required for freedom. Forgiveness is only granted by Faith in absolution of sin by Christ.

>Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all.
He's saying here, believing in false doctrines that talk of salvation are sin, and lead the wrong way.
> Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law.
If you are circumcised, you literally have to believe in the Old Testament as well, with it's law.
>4 You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.
This is talking about trying to take advantage of grace.
>For through the Spirit we eagerly await by faith the righteousness for which we hope.
This is talking about how important patience in faith is.

I can continue.

>>11700427
If your a Presbyterian, don't you believe in Unconditional Election? If so, how could you agree that grace requires man's cooperation?

I agree that works with our faith is empty. Do you agree with scripture that faith without works is dead?

>>11700432
I'm the guy who asked when you thought Paul and the others were writing. I don't defend sola fide. I cited numerous scriptures earlier to that effect. We are saved through faith but that faith is justified by works.

>>11700431
Absolutely, and you brother. I pray dearly for you as well as the rest of the Church.

>>11700432
>Why do you ignore scripture? James condemns this doctrine.
Where?

>>11700435
I agree.

>>11700438
How so?

>>11700444
Freewill, the ones who are eternally saved are of their own will.

>>11700445
justification is just affirmation. Nothing more, nothing less.

>>11700441
What Paul is talking about with the whole circumcision think is the problem they were having at that time with Judaizers who were trying to bind aspects of the Mosaic law on Christians. We are obviously no longer under that law, but that doesn't mean that being a Christian means you get to sit back and relax. There's work to be done.

>>11700455
>We are obviously no longer under that law, but that doesn't mean that being a Christian means you get to sit back and relax.
Wrong. God's word is eternal, and it is law.

>>11700445
Sorry, I saw "what," instead of "when."

Really sorry.

They were written very early which is amazing (all in the first century). But that still doesn't refute the point though. I think the Gospel of St. Mark is the earliest. So, how could Christians before the first ever NT book be sola scriptura and be Christian?

I'm not saying you believe this, but just showing you the argument and how it still stands.

>>11700448
>>Why do you ignore scripture? James condemns this doctrine.
>Where?
I would ask that you please give me the courtesy of actually reading my replies... Let me reiterate:
>James 2
>17
So also faith of itself, if it does not have works, is dead.
>20
Do you want proof, you ignoramus, that faith without works is useless?
>HERE'S THE BIG ONE, 24
See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.
>26
For just as a body without a spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead.

Please see my previous posts so that you do not think that I am arguing that we earn grace or that faith is not important:
>>11700411
>>11700386

>>11700460
>So also faith of itself, if it does not have works, is dead.
Yes I agree with this, but having patience in faith produces works.

>>11700457
Are you saying that Christians are under the Mosaic covenant? Read Hebrews 8:6-13. When you have time, read the whole book.

>>11700452
>Freewill, the ones who are eternally saved are of their own will.
Okay, so we agree here.
Please see this post that I just made:
>>11700460
In there I show scripture from the Bible that condemns sola fide.

I also urge you to read my other two posts, so that you do not think I am arguing for no faith whatsoever or that we earn grace (I do not believe in that, nor argue for it):
>>11700411
>>11700386

And again, I will ask you, do you think faith without works is dead? Do you agree with scripture?

>>11700272
Grass is green.
Green is a color.
Therefore grass is a color.

>>11700466
Until you have understand Faith alone, I do believe you are under this law.

>>11700460
OP has proven he is incapable of actual argument, but this point deserves being highlighted twice.

>See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.
Rhetoric does not equal love. Talk is cheap. Bullshit walks.

>>11700324
Correct yourself.

>>11700460
No apology is necessary.
I think the point here is that the early Church had ample access to sound teaching and they had the apostles and their appointees shepherding them. We know from reading the NT that they struggled against heresy even back then. Maybe 'sola scriptura' is something of a misnomer. What we're really talking about is sound teaching inspired by the Holy Spirit.

>>11700473
True Rhetoric comes from the heart. If it does not, it is not in the light of God.

>>11700471
What are you basing that reasoning on?

>>11700479
>t.

>>11700464
Now, is that faith by itself? Is that faith "alone"?
It does not sound like it.

Works are necessary to sustain the life of faith, yes? I'll use this analogy again, (I don't think I've used it in reply to you, though).

There is man with a garden. He has two orange trees. One produces fruit and one does not. It is clear that the owner will not keep the tree that produces fruit. And just because it is a tree does not mean it must produce fruit.

I'm sure you can make the connections there.

>>11700477
Which requires faith.

>>11700485
Say what you want about that man, but he is good with the Word, how else would he be successful?

>>11700484
Because everything starts with Faith, if you have no faith in Christ, you are blind to him, and you would also be blind to his workings.

>>11700487
You do not understand Faith alone IS faith by itself.
ALONE.
ITS SELF.

They both mean a singular thing!

>>11700490
>he is good with the Word, how else would he be successful?

>equating financial success with Christ
enjoy Hell, fucktard op. try reading the Bible instead of making shit up. yes, i mad.

>>11700487
Tree's are worldly, God is not. Your logic literally doesn't apply.

>>11700498
Sorry pal, you're not my judge. Repent, I'll pray for my heart and yours together.

>>11700470
Grass is a color you absolute moron. As you just established, the color that grass is, is green

>>11700477
I assert that the fullness of truth is founded on the three pillars:
Holy Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and Magisterium.

(Clearly, I am Catholic.)

When there was no scripture, I say that sound teaching was preserved in the other two pillars, which are guided by the Holy Spirit.

>>11700470
Are "the son", "the spirit" and "the father" adjectives?

>>11700490
Going back to my earlier post, I think we're talking about two different things here. There's the question of salvation, to which I maintain faith justified by works, and there's the matter of doctrine and practice. Yes it starts with faith, but of course you have to be taught what to have faith in. Where do you find sound teaching? The Bible. Where do you find sound teaching if you're a Christian in 40 AD? The apostles and their followers.
I originally intended this as an argument against the Catholic thing, really. They have sacred tradition and the Magisterium in addition to the Scriptures. My whole point is that only the Bible is reliable as a source for Church doctrine and practice.

>>11700495
I am not arguing the tautology, "faith alone is faith by itself"...

You said:
>Yes I agree with this, but having patience in faith produces works.
I said:
Is that faith alone?

Clearly it is not, as I showed in the previous reply, >>11700487

I genuinely don't see how you could've messed that up or why did not reply to the actual substance of the reply...

>>11700499
You have got to be kidding me. Clearly, you are not good with analogies or parables. God is the owner, the garden is Heaven, the trees are men with faith (or faith), and the fruits are works.

Does that help? I don't think it's that hard.

>>11700502
I think the core of my disagreement with you is that you believe in apostolic succession and I don't.

>>11700512
Reading the Bible is not required to have to faith in Christ.
That's why faith is by it's self, and the first of the bridge of Christ.

>>11700498
I agree he (and Olsteen) are insufferable but you shouldn't say that.

Dude's probably trolling anyways. There seems to be a lot of slow people in this thread.

>>11700517
Yes, that is faith alone. What do you do after faith? Wait. That's patience. Continuous faith is key.

>Does that help? I don't think it's that hard.
I'm saying you can't quantify God in parable without divine revelation.

>>11700522
I didn't say reading the Bible was required, no one believes in Jesus without being taught about Him. Ultimately, the things we in 2018 will need to know about Jesus and the Gospel will come from the Bible and nowhere else.

>>11700520
Yeah, that'd definitely be it.

I urge you to read these articles (little bit normie, but sufficient):
https://www.catholic.com/tract/apostolic-succession

https://www.catholic.com/index.php/qa/what-is-the-biblical-support-for-apostolic-succession

>>11700501
>there is a color called grass

>>11700469
>>Freewill, the ones who are eternally saved are of their own will.
Oops I misspoke, I believe it's of God's sovereign will.

>>11700199
Atheism is the only rational position, there is just no way to go around it.

>>11700538
I went through all but about two weeks of RCIA and was very very very passionate about Catholicism during my time, but thank you for caring enough to post articles. I appreciate the sincerity.
One of the things that killed it for me was the fact that the Catholic church maintains traditions that are in blatant contradiction to Scripture. If you're going to have those three pillars, they must all be in harmony, right? If Paul says that elders and deacons must be married, and the Roman church says they can't (or at least it's extremely rare and difficult), for me there's no contest in who I'm going to trust.

>>11700507
Hello anon, I hope you're well. The main point is that "is" doesn't necessarily mean identity (:

>>11700532
That could not be faith alone—for salvation—, because the faith necessary for salvation would not warrant salvation if it did not have works as James agrees.

I think you're assuming works comes subsequently after faith. And to say "if there are no works to be shown, then it wasn't really faith," is to beg the question.

It's quite clear that you are in opposition to scripture.

Lmao I wish you christcucks could take a step back and realize how fucking insane you guys sound. This must be like what listening in on a scientology meeting must be like.

>>11700559
Faith doesn't require you to be absent from your life. Why would you think works would not happen?
Do you not have faith you'll have works in the future?

I'm absolutely not in opposition.

>>11700546
Atheism precludes the existence of reason.

>>11700567
[source]

>>11700552
Of course man, I appreciate your consideration and kindness!
>must be married
So let's address RCC teaching on it. There is a discipline which states that priests much be celibate (in the Latin rite, sometimes it's not the case in the Eastern rite). A discipline can be reversed; it's just a well supported tradition. It is not a dogma though, which is an immutable rule of faith (like that God is a trinity is an immutable rule of faith to believe in).

Now, does Paul say "must"? I am unsure of where you're talking about. But I'd guess that Paul does not say "men of the cloth MUST be married." Paul does say that celibacy puts one closer to God (That does not equate to priestly celibacy, but shows that celibacy for someone is supported by the Bible.)

And come on man. Do you think you've done a thorough enough investigation into these RCC teachings as to whether or not they are contra-biblical (which is not equivalent to extra-biblical)? I am not saying you haven't, but just want to make sure that you have exhausted all your resources. I pray that you do a thorough investigation. Maybe talk to a Catechist? Definitely research the Church Fathers on matters of issues for you. If anyone knew real Christianity, it'd be them.

>>11700576
Bahnsen.

>>11700543
>moron is a color, and it is you

>>11700576
> argument from authority
Use your own mind instead of 'sources', you twat.

Also, you unwittingly proved the guy's point. Instead of using your reason you demanded a list of prepackaged citations that don't require actually using your brain.

>>11700565
>Why would you think works would not happen?
I think good works would not happen because even the demons believe in God and that faith has absolutely no good works. Did not Judas have faith in Jesus? He did and did good works come of it? Hardly.

>Do you not have faith you'll have works in the future?
I do, but I am not passive like you are. That is the difference.

>>11700584
Oh is this how we're doing it? Okay "Christianity is stupid". My source for that is Feurbach(Who was a much better philosopher)

>>11700558
If A is B and B is A then A = B.

>>11700546
>t.

>>11700594
How is that an argument from authority? He's the one making the claim so he should back it up and I know you idiots are too stupid to actually make any arguments for yourself and will instead retort Augustine or Aquinas or WLC or some other theologian.

>>11700594
No need to call the guy a twat. In my experience atheists are just struggling. They're often angry, scared, and/or lonely and they don't know how to deal with it. I think we've all been there at one time or another. Atheism comes from an emotional place, not an intellectual one, and it should be dealt with appropriately. Atheism is easy to refute intellectually, but atheists should be handled with compassion and understanding. Remember 1 Peter 3:15.

>>11700626
>demands a source for a rational claim, just to take the thought seriously
>...
>"how is that an argument from authority "
>proceeds to tell us about Feuerbach

>>11700599
Demons don't have Faith in Christ.

>>11700607
Better according to what standard?

>>11700637
You know a source can be yourself right? Like you can give your own argument? I know that never happens with you but it is a possibility!

And giving someone elses arguments isn't necessarily an argument from authority either, I mean a simple reading of the wikipedia article on Argument from authority will tell you as much. Either way as long as i'm not saying "Heres this guy whos a theologian and theologians know what theyre talking about so this argument is correct", its not an argument from authority.

>>11700642
I'm not that guy, but this actually is a good point. Faith and belief are two different things. The demons know that God exists according to James 2:19, but they do not have faith in Him. They do not love or trust Him. They hate and fear Him.

>>11700646
>You know a source can be yourself, right?
No I didn't know that. Tell me more about that.

>>11700642
Ah, but they believe in Him. I'll cast that one off, though.

How will you answer my Judas question?

>>11700199
>prove my distorted view of Christianity is wrong
Pic. You're welcome.

>>11700666
Judas's judgement is not mine, I cannot say.

>>11700683
The Bible is about astrology, really.

>>11700687
It's plain to see that Judas had faith in Jesus Christ and did Peter for example (Christ literally recognizes his faith in Him in Mt 16). One had good works, one did not. Jesus "saw" the faith of the men who carried the paralytic. There's another place that you can know someone had a real faith in Christ.

There's your counter example. If you accept this, you cannot say "If Judas had no good works, then it's really that he did not have authentic faith." That would be to beg the question.

>>11700712
Who's to say if Judas had no good works? I refuse the position.

>>11700666
>Him
>666
AMSG

>>11700747
forgive me for being hyperbolic, but what the Judas example is showing that one can have faith, but still produce bad works.


And I'm going to push this again from scripture:
>You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.
What do you say to this? Read it in context to realize that it's not Pelagianism (earning grace), but nevertheless, scripture says is:
>man is justified by works and man is justified not by faith alone.
Scripture says:
>man is not justified by faith alone.
How could you possibly subscribe to sola fide when scripture denies it?

Daily reminder that Christianity is Jewish psy-op and teaches cuck ideals to keep people slavish.

>>11700344
>"You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the greatest and first commandment."
>Jesus's greatest commandment is about loving God

>And now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; and the greatest of these is love.
>love is greater than faith

>"And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing."
>can have all the faith in the world, but you're nothing without love

but you know, if I'm going to be saved by anything alone, it'd be faith, not love

>>11700796
>t. Sabbatean false flag operative

>>11700632
everyone is an atheist in regards to most gods, some just find it difficult to let go of their childhood stories (most religious people just follow whatever their parents taught them as children). when you grow up, you should put away childish things like stories about magic

>>11702327
Religious people are not Atheists against all Gods except one, where Atheists go the extra step of denying one more.

A religious person denies other gods in the sense that he denies the other interpretations of the nature of God, while the Atheist denies all possible natures of God primely because he denies the existence of God—which is the priority claim and the one that former denial is ontologically dependent upon—, implying that there is no god.

Yes the nature of God and existence are best described as synonymous, but you probably didn't know that because you have the comprehension of a weakling and the exploratory zeal of a blind man.

The one true God who is pure actuality can in fact be logically concluded to through the observation of corporeal beings and the change from potentiality to actuality between them. Apparently logic and empiricism is "magic."

Trinitophrenia is hellish.

>>11702544
You have failed to even comprehend my position. I have not made a claim, I have simply rejected someone else's claim.

It would be irrational to deny all possible natures of god, however the fact remains that there is no good reason to believe in any human faith tradition because all metaphysical claims made by them are completely without evidence.

I think the religious people project their own feelings onto atheists in regards to religion. How would you address someone who was simply raised without a religion? To such a person, all religious claims would be on equal grounding, and they would reject Christianity just as you reject Hinduism.

It is unfortunate how the human mind is so susceptible to indoctrination as a child, so much so that it becomes nearly impossible for the adult to forgo the ideas put into their heads in their infancy. There is no "observation of corporeal beings" that gets you to god, but you probably reject the theory of evolution, so you have no other concept of how minds come into being.

>>11702629
>I have not made a claim, I have simply rejected someone else's claim.
oh my
"I reject [insert claim]," is a claim. It's called a negation.

>because all metaphysical claims made by them are completely without evidence.
This is not true. I will say more on this.

>How would you address someone who was simply raised without a religion?
In the same way that Aristotle would have. I will speak more on this.

>It is unfortunate how the human mind is so susceptible to indoctrination as a child, so much so that it becomes nearly impossible for the adult to forgo the ideas put into their heads in their infancy.
I enjoy how you focus in of cradle religious people. Do converts scare you?

>There is no "observation of corporeal beings" that gets you to god.
Yes there is. I will speak more on it.

>but you probably reject the theory of evolution.
Another problem of Atheism. You see the denial of science by Evangelicals (which is foolish) and apply that the broader spectrum of religion. You sound like a typical New Atheist in America who knows nothing more about religion other than the bastard versions like Protestantism.

Okay, so there are metaphysical claims with evidence and there are literally empirical observations that lead to God. By light of natural reason, a man exposed to no religion could begin to understand God from a natural position. Again, you're a small new Atheist and probably have never learned of the classical theistic description of God. I genuinely do not feel like typing the whole argument up, but it is St. Thomas Aquinas's argument from Motion. Here is also the Aristotelian proof.

>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qmpw0_w27As
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hx9gLvLYF5s&t=1922s

1/2

>>11702716
2/2

>>11702716
>>11702721
>negation is a claim
>completely misunderstanding the burden of proof
as expected
>cradle religious people
again, this is the primary way religion is propagated.
>the rest
weak and tired apologetics. sad.

>>11702748
>weak and tired apologetics. sad.
You don't have 1 hour of your day to watch those videos? You don't have time to read the proof? Stop being a child and take other points, claims, evidence, logic, and proof into consideration.

I don't think the problem is that there is a lack of evidence or proof for God, but rather you actively deny to consider potential evidence or potential proof.


btw, I agree that the burden of proof would still be on the first claimant, yes. That doesn't mean a negation is not a claim, though. A claim is statement that has a truth value, true or false. Does the statement, "it is not true that the cow is black," have a truth value? Yes, and it is a negation.

>>11702793
Saying "your claim does not meet the threshold at which I would believe it" does not actually make any claim about whether your claim is true or false. Only that you have not presented the case sufficiently for me to believe it is true

Also, if your "proof" applies casual logic to the beginning of time, you are already disqualified because causation requires time, and since you are claiming it for the beginning of time, it is self contradicting

>>11702816
>Also, if your "proof" applies casual logic to the beginning of time, you are already disqualified because causation requires time, and since you are claiming it for the beginning of time, it is self contradicting
The proof is not dependent on time. Per accidens causality is temporal, per se causality is not temporal. The proof refers to causation that is essentially ordered (per se), a hierarchy of causation. Watch the first video (just 8 minutes) and you would've known that.

>>11702721
>>11702716

You do realize that these don't at all exclusively prove the Christian idea of God as existing over what's found in other religions? All of those same arguments could be made to argue for the existence of some all-pervading transcendental god which is the only thing that exists such as in Hinduism for example, and in fact the various Vedanta thinkers use some of these very arguments to argue for the existence of this transcendental god in their writings. It always makes me laugh when aquinas posters act like he absolutely proved Christianity was true and correct when his serious arguments only extend as far as proving there must be some eternal and immutable principle which is the cause of existence. This is already found in half a dozen other religions already.

>>11700775
Bad works is part of being imperfect, like all of us.

>>11700775
I keep telling you justification is simply affirmation.

>>11702933
>You do realize that these don't at all exclusively prove the Christian idea of God as existing over what's found in other religions?
Did I say it did?

If I'm going to argue with an Atheist as a Christian, the first hoop I have to get through is convincing him of God's existence (rather that God is pure actuality). That's just the first step. Why would I go on to argue for the Christian God if the Atheist doesn't believe in any god? Aquinas's five ways is not the limit of my arsenal. I'm merely using the right tools for the right occasions. Do you not understand that? If I wanted to argue for the Christian God from light of natural reason (not yet by light of revelation), I would move on from Summa Q2 (as you clearly have not) to the latter questions about divine attributes and such, that argue in favor of the Christian God. It's almost like there's a natural progression of argumentation and specific arguments for specific issues.

>>11702982
>The Bible says man is not justified by faith alone.
>You say that man is justified by faith alone.
You contradict scripture.
It cannot be that scripture is incorrect.
You are incorrect.

Do you not see this? Address this now. Why do you say we are justified by faith alone when the Bible says that we are not justified by faith alone?

>>11703015
Are you this dense man? I'm not denying that claim. You are to hung up on the term justification. It means affirmation of faith, not causation of faith.

>>11702993
Well then, lay out Aquinas's best arguments for why specifically the dualist sky-father of the OT/NT is the true understanding of the divine and not say for example the transcendental Allah of Sufism, the eternal Dao of Taoism or the non-dual Nirguna Brahman of Advaita Vedanta.

>>11700299
>Demands biblical reference versus sacred tradition
>the bible is sacred tradition
If you believe in the bible, you can either go with Eastern Orthodoxy, Coptic Orthodoxy, or Roman Orthodoxy. The bible is a product of the oral traditions of the church fathers as compiled and codified by the pre-schismatic church. Demanding sola scriptura is an absurd modernist heresy. The orthodox faiths are not in communion with each other, which makes things hard, but any sect which does not fall within the traditional orthodoxies is inherently heretical. You cannot access the word except through their traditions. If you believe tradition is a corruption, then you cannot access the word, for the word itself is only extant because of their tradition. If the word itself is corruptible, it cannot be the word. If you firmly believe in Christ and that the Pope is a corruption of faith, then the only valid options are the other orthodox faiths.

>>11703047
I'm a protestant and I read workd of saints. I'm going to have to disagree with you.

>>11703045
>dualist
Wrong, it's a trinity.
Father, Son and Holy Ghost.

>>11703026
>justification
>It means affirmation of faith

Justification refers to us being justified to receive the inheritance salvation. What are you even talking about?

And I will push it further, why do you believe in faith alone? Are you the same anon? That guy was pretty firm about sola fide, if you are not him. Why faith alone? You must abandon the doctrine if you accept that it contradicts scripture, which you do accept.

>>11700607
>The only good philosophers are ones I agree with

>>11703068
And I will push it further, why do you believe in faith alone?
Grace is granted through faith. Workings are by the grace.
>Are you the same anon? That guy was pretty firm about sola fide, if you are not him. Why faith alone? You must abandon the doctrine if you accept that it contradicts scripture, which you do accept.
I am him, and you are wrong.

>>11700646
Asking for a source in an argument is inherently an appeal to authority. You didn't ask for an argument or a proof, you asked for a source. You didn't challenge the truth of it, you challenged the credentials of it. The clear and indisputable implication is that if it came from the poster, it isn't valid. Why is this an unavoidable implication? Because if the poster was a valid source, your next question would be to ask him to prove it, and yet this question is valid regardless of the source; if the question of source was irrelevant to the validity of the conclusion, then why did you ask the question?

The only valid use of sourcing is academic documentation--understanding the historocity of the claim.

>>11703045
>dualist
lol

Sorry, but I'm not going to type up a book for you. Literally go online and read the Summa, champ:
>https://dhspriory.org/thomas/summa/

Oh by the way, to prove that the Christian God is the one true God, all I would have to do is prove one thing about about Him that is entirely distinct from every other conception of God (law of noncontradiction). I'll give you a little teaser, though: I'd start with why God must be a trinity.

>>11703067
I'm still waiting for the good arguments

>>11700653
Exactly. This is why Pascal's Wager is still valid. Knowing that God is the best choice amongst all possible uncertainties is seperate and distinct from actually believing in him.

>>11703091
Workings are through faith. Christ tells us to do good works, not passively wait for grace to make us do works.

Let me ask you, why do you put faith higher than love? Faith may be the first step to love (which I affirm), but the door is not greater than the mansion it opens up to (and that is not to deny the importance of the entrance either).

>"You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the greatest and first commandment."
>Jesus's greatest commandment is about loving God

>And now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; and the greatest of these is love.
>love is greater than faith

>"And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing."
>can have all the faith in the world, but you're nothing without love

>>11703099
>>11703098

>>11703098
Trinitarianism is still included within the concept of dualism, the standard meaning of dualism is when there is an immutable difference between the individual human being/soul and God, the added details of the trinity doesn't change that it adheres to this basic framework.

>Oh by the way, to prove that the Christian God is the one true God, all I would have to do is prove one thing about about Him that is entirely distinct from every other conception of God (law of noncontradiction).

such as?

>I'll give you a little teaser, though: I'd start with why God must be a trinity.

How about you have the confidence to lay out your argument instead of posturing?

>>11703113
Faith is not infront of love, your view seems to be very distorted.

>>11703099
wut? lol
Both scripture and tradition say it is a trinity. Almost all of the early heresies involved questions of language that allowed for any other interpretation. The primary theological disagreement b/t Rome and the East is the addition of Filioque to the creed. Trinity is the null hypotheses. You made the claim that despite all arguments, it's actually dualist--it falls on you to support it.

>>11703098
>ask for evidence of existence of God
>"it's self evident"
fuck you buddy, just wasted 15 seconds of my life

>>11703142
But literally, it IS self evident.

>>11703133
Workings ARE faith. Faith without works is not faith. If you say you believe in God, but you do not follow God, then your words are a lie. If you believe in God, you do as he wills, which means doing works. If you do not do as he wills, you do not believe. Hence the scripture "Do as they say, not as they do." Also hence the phrase Leap of Faith. The quality of faith requires action. You cannot have the quality of faith without works.

Knowing this, however, the understanding of works is changed. Works does not mean, necessarily, public acts of charity. Rather works means following the word with your whole being. This extends even to the most private moments of life. In some ways, it is these private moments where works are most necessary. In some respect, it may be as simple as folding laundry, but it cannot be seen in a way that would discourage or deny the most public acts. Sola Fide is dangerous because its lack of clarity not only opens the door to sin, but in many ways encourages a life of sin; While Faith is all, the phrase Faith Alone suggests the lack of necessity of some other thing. The warnings against this phrase are proven justified when people like you begin to contrast Faith against works. They are not contrastable, because they are not comparable. There are no true works without faith. There is no faith without works.

>>11703129
>such as?
I said and you acknowledged it, the trinity.

>How about you have the confidence to lay out your argument instead of posturing?
I won't lie to you, I am not going to do that. It's not that I lack confidence in my abilities to argue for the trinity (though I do think I should understanding more than I do), but I have been in this thread, replying like crazy. I'm not going to invest in an anon, more than I already have in many others in this thread, especially in light of me pointing you in the direction of argumentation that I would find fit and referring you to resources.

Call me afraid or lazy, I guess and I'd imagine you would dare sympathize—though I don't need it or expect you recognize you have been the same way at least once in your life— I don't really care. But, that still wouldn't change a damn thing about the truth value of whether the God that is pure actuality (which you don't desire to negate anymore, not sure why. if you're and Atheist you gotta either jump through that hoop or destroy it) is the Christian God. "The Trinity is a true characteristic of God"'s truth value is entirely unaffected by whether or not I exert myself further on here.

Why can't you have a religion without this cognitive dualism bullshit, why do you have to separate faith and reason? Call me when you have a holistic system figured out faggots, and it better not take another 2k years.

>>11703133
>Works without faith is empty. That's why atheism will never really work.
>>11700427
If that is you, I could not have said it better myself.

Love is the quintessential work. But it would be in vain if it were not for God and His children and His creations.

Again, why do you put faith higher than love? Christ does not do such a thing.

>>11703180
>Workings ARE faith.
No.
>Works does not mean, necessarily, public acts of charity. Rather works means following the word with your whole being
I do not believe in the former, and with the latter I do not mean that is what works is, but please show me how I'm wrong.

>Sola Fide is dangerous because its lack of clarity not only opens the door to sin, but in many ways encourages a life of sin
It does not.

> Faith Alone suggests the lack of necessity of some other thing.
No, you do not understand the term Faith Alone. I urge you to pray on this topic.
Faith alone does not mean ignore Christian duty, nor does it mean to ignore Scripture.


You have the wrong view on this topic, I do believe we can no longer discuss this.
That is fine, I have faith in you with Christ as I pray you do in me.

>>11703196
Faith isn't seperated from reason in the Church.
You understand nothing.

>>11703202
>Again, why do you put faith higher than love?
I don't, stop asserting that. You're twisting my words to fit you directive. Stop, this is literally ruining discusion for the sake of your arguement.

>>11703196
faith vs reason is a false dichotomy posed by Luther the Heretic 500 years ago. Catholics don't believe in it. Faith fulfills reason and it always has.

Why do you think that Christ is the Divine Logos? He is the order of the universe, reason at its finest.

>>11703134
>Both scripture and tradition say it is a trinity.

I was asking for logical arguments that go beyond saying it's what the texts say and it's what people before us did, arguments revolving around the principles themselves. If you really want to go down that road though I could argue that Judaism and Christianity by extension are a degeneration of the primordial tradition because the Zoroastrians in their texts describe a transcendental all-pervading infinite god. Judiasm got almost all of their major doctrines from (Indo-European) Zoroastrianism after the Persians freed them from Babylon and then ruled them as subjects for 3-4 centuries. One could just as easily argue that the Tradition was corrupted when the Jews misunderstood the Zoroastrian god as being non-transcendental and imported that misconception into Christianity.

>You made the claim that despite all arguments, it's actually dualist--it falls on you to support it.

Again, see the earlier post. The trinity is still dualist insofar as it posits an immutable difference between god and man. That's ultimately irrelevant though, I'm asking people for logical arguments as to why the Christian God specifically is the true one, semantics about dualism/trinity don't change that nobody seems able to provide one.

>>11703224
I am saying such things because if there was going to be a "X-alone" doctrine other than grace alone (which is true), it'd probably be "love alone" given Christ's emphasis on love and the NT's emphasis on love.

Here's the thing, love is promoted so highly, rightfully so, but that doesn't equate to "love alone." Same is such for faith.

>>11703217
>>11703230
I want to believe in transcendental things because modern materialism is really fucking shit way to live, but to believe in God always forces me to take that faith leap and nobody ever explained how could I arrive to God by reason.

>>11703183
How does proving one aspect of the Christian god is unique prove it to be true? Every other religion has it's own unique take that includes unique things about their god, why is the trinity different from any other unique trait of any god of another religion? You didn't provide any reason why this proves the trinity is true other than saying it's different from other religions which is a non-argument because it just as equally applies to Ahura Mazda or Brahman.

>>11703246
read Guenon

>>11703238
Faith is not a passive process, it is an active process of trusting Christ.
Faith Alone does not discredit love, in fact it does the opposite.

>>11703246
Read Aquinas! That's arriving at God by reason. Though that way is still not fulfilling. Faith fulfills it. Faith and reason complement each other.

Maybe you could just pray? Speak to God in private (you'll feel weird at first). I'm a big math guy and was an atheist, but I came to believe in God (Christianity, specifically Catholicism) by faith actually. It's totally in your capacity! I'll pray for you. :)

>>11703142
Existence itself is evidence of God.
No thing can come from nothing. That there is anything means it must come from some thing.
Being itself is a singular and binary quality. This means that there can only be one source of Being. No matter how different two things are, if there share literally zero other qualities, they must, as a necessity, have being. If they have being, than Beingness must be external to either one or both.

With this then, we see that the source of all Being must be Beingness itself. Further, there is no quality of Being itself which requires or even suggests any other subsequent thing, then the primary being must have some sense of volition, and all things which have being can only have being by the sense of will possessed by that first Being.

Such a Being, which has no cause by itself, is the cause of all other things, and which exists beyond all other qualities is necessitated by the mere fact of existence itself, and is the only being worth of such a title as God.

>>11703098
>>11703183
Whatever your difficulties, this argument reads thusly:
Go read these thousand pages kid. Even though they probably won't convince you, that's not the point, I just need to get you away from these lay believers long enough for the thread to scroll.

>>11703233
You should read what I said again. The trinity occupies the null position. You are claiming that despite tradition, despite all public claims, those who claim God is a trinity actually profess a duality. You're the one who has to justify that. We say God is a trinity. Simply by saying it, we don't have to demonstrate that what we say is what we say. There is literally no argument we can provide to show that we mean what we mean unless you provide an argument for why we mean what we do not mean.

>>11703250
If the Trinity is unique to Christianity, then it is absent in other religion.
The Trinity is unique to Christianity.
If I show that the Trinity is true to the nature of God, then God must be the Christian God, because only this concept of God maintains the Trinity.
If the Trinity is true to the nature of God, then all concepts of God that do not maintain the Trinity are invalid concepts.


>You didn't provide any reason why this proves the trinity is true other than saying it's different from other religions which is a non-argument because it just as equally applies to Ahura Mazda or Brahman.
The Trinity does not apply to Ahura Mazda or Brahman lol. Ahura Mazda is monotheistic yes, but Zoroastrian doctrine doesn't address any Trinitarian doctrine. For Brahman, yeah it might come in forms like Krishna, but that is modalism (God changing His state of being) which is not Trinitarian; also, in Hinduism, it's not limited to three modalities either.

>>11703266
Is this you?
>>11700532
>Yes, that is faith alone. What do you do after faith? Wait. That's patience. Continuous faith is key.
Sounds passive to me.

>>11703282
your pithy contentions could hardly shake the faintest of believers.

I have given resources and a good place to start.

>TRINITY
totally unique to Christianity. Prove that, you disprove all others. This depends on the fact that the concept is unique, singular, unshared, distinct.

>>11703311
Waiting isn't just faith, that's part of the process of using faith. It's a continues process that should be unending.

>>11703289
>You should read what I said again. The trinity occupies the null position. You are claiming that despite tradition, despite all public claims, those who claim God is a trinity actually profess a duality.

Are you retarded? I've already stated that the dualist/trinity distinction is entirely irrelevant to the topic at hand, which is that I'm asking people for logical/metaphysical arguments for WHY specifically the Christian God is the true one and not that of other religions. It seems like you're jumping on this one irrelevant distinction to avoid answering the question I've given you.

>You're the one who has to justify that. We say God is a trinity. Simply by saying it, we don't have to demonstrate that what we say is what we say.

You were the one saying Aquinas proved that it's specifically the Christian God which is true. I'm asking you to either repeat or paraphrase his arguments or come up with your own.

>>11703338
Read the Old Testament.
Christ is the promised son.

>>11703303

>If the Trinity is unique to Christianity, then it is absent in other religion.
True

>The Trinity is unique to Christianity.
There are some broad similarities in other traditions such as the Hindu trimurti but in the specific details sure it's unique

>If I show that the Trinity is true to the nature of God, then God must be the Christian God, because only this concept of God maintains the Trinity.
Except that you didn't prove that trinity is true to the nature of God. Your entire argument bases itself on a hypothetical and unproven claim which you never even advanced any argument in favor of.

>>11703356
Read the Avestas, Judaism and its offshoots like Christianity are just distorted Semitic interpretations of Zoroastrianism that failed to grasp its essential teachings.

>>11703212
>you do not understand the phrase
But that's exactly my point. The phrase is either heresy, redundant, or contradictory, depending on how it is used, and nothing in the phrase alone suggests its proper meaning. This means the only way it can not be heretical is with proper teaching, i.e. tradition.

If we are saved by faith alone, then what duties do we have other than to believe? And as you said, works are not faith. So if we can be saved without works, then how are works necessary? If works are not necessary, then how can it be called a duty? If works are not faith, but works are necessary, then we are not saved by works alone. If faith can exist without action, then how can faith be lost by wrong action? Do you see how you are walking a fine line of equivocation? If I do evil, but believe in God, am I saved? How can I believe in God if I do evil? If evil deeds negate faith, than faith cannot be separated from deeds. If faith cannot be separated from deeds, then in what way is it meaningful to say Faith Alone? If despite their insperable relationship, you hold works and deeds as distinct, then Faith Alone is false. If faith and deeds are not distinct, then Faith Alone is not only redundant, but dangerous for suggesting that Faith is distinct from works.

>>11703338
Thinking that the distinction between duality and trinity is irrelevant calls into question your entire "understanding" of any theological metaphysics.

>>11703338
There is the prophecies of the old testament and the historical claims of the apostles in the new testament. (Also the NT claims of the resurrection are more historically supported than alternatives such as the apostles lied or hallucinated).

>>11703372
I have anon, as I have read some of the discarded apocalypses.

It's a very clear path of texts that have clearly refined God's meaning and message through divine revelation.

>>11703374
Look, I implored you to study this topic because I promise you I cannot change your view. I would also say praying on this topic will bring you revelation.

>>11703365
This is ridiculous. You're asking multiple questions as though they are one question,and equivocating between them. You want a broad and thorough explanation for why Christians believe their conception of God is true? Read any of the endless number of arguments that have been produced in the past 1500 years. You want a clear and delineated explanation of how Christianity differs in a theologically meaningful way from any other religion? Read the wikipedia pages of various religions. Instead of acting like no one has ever provided you any explanation (which is absurd, given that we live in a Christian society), raise specific questions as to why you have found these previous explanations insufficient. Don't pretend to be ignorant of the arguments you stand against, and then become smug and arrogant when an anon can't summarize millennia of explanation into a single post.

>>11703272
Aquinas would literally want me dead for the things I've said in this thread.

>>11703257
I've read Evola and it left a bad taste in my mouth by not decreeing why the transcendental exists but just took it for granted, is Guenon the same?

>>11703414
I have studied this topic. It's why I posed those questions to you. You have built your fortress in the air. Your argument lacks foundation. It is invalid to say I do not understand without providing an explanation. If you believe what you say, argue it.

>>11703434
I have and you have refused to try to except my point of view for the sake of discusion. With that we are babbling and speaking in tongues only God understands.

>>11703447
You haven't argued your position. You've given no explanation for why Faith and Works are distinct and separate. You've given no explanation for how we are saved by faith ALONE, but we must still do works. You have stated what your position is, but you have given no explanation for why your position is true. I have looked at your point of view, and in viewing it, and trying it, I have many questions--questions which I asked you, and you refused to answer.

>>11703246
>forces me to take the leap of faith
Yes. that is the nature of truth. If you want an explanation of why God must exist, read >>11703275. But knowing why is not the same as believing it to be true.

You want the logic of God, but God himself is the source of logic. God both is and precedes logic. God is not simply true, God is Truth. You cannot see the true shape of things, because you have placed yourself at the center of your existence. But God is the center of all existence. You require a Copernican inversion of your soul, but refuse to abandon your view of yourself. God is something that can be seen only after you have seen him. Read Kierkegaard.

>>11703372
Prove it.

>>11703129
That is not the "standard" meaning of dualism in a theological context. It's not even the accepted meaning of dualism in any context. You're conflating the use of Dualism in terms of Philosophy of Mind and in terms of Theology. Dualism in general is the idea that there are two fundamental, distinct, and to some extent opposing categories. In theology, this is often seen as a belief in a supreme Good and a supreme Evil, neither of which are subordinated to the other in any respect. In Philosophy of Mind, it is seen as the as-of-yet irreconcilable difference between mind and body. Taken not as an -ism, but as a descriptive (dualist/dualistic/duality), it would simply mean of two parts, natures, qualities, categories, or some other kind of distinction. If applied in contrast to the Trinity, it would mean that God exists as two beings in one, versus three beings in one. If you do not understand this, you really shouldn't be arguing on this topic at all.

>>11703487
Look over my answers again, what question have I refused to answer?

>>11703336
So Faith is something you do, not something you have?

No human or god can match
Nature's simultaneous 4 day
rotation in 1 Earth rotation.

No human has a right to
believe wrong - for that
would be boring thinking.

Ignorance of 4 days is boring,
Boring educators teach 1 day.
1 day will destroy humans.

OPPOSITES CREATE.
Mother and father gave me birth, not a unicorn taco god.

>>11703602
>If we are saved by faith alone, then what duties do we have other than to believe? And as you said, works are not faith. So if we can be saved without works, then how are works necessary? If works are not necessary, then how can it be called a duty? If works are not faith, but works are necessary, then we are not saved by works alone. If faith can exist without action, then how can faith be lost by wrong action? Do you see how you are walking a fine line of equivocation? If I do evil, but believe in God, am I saved? How can I believe in God if I do evil? If evil deeds negate faith, than faith cannot be separated from deeds. If faith cannot be separated from deeds, then in what way is it meaningful to say Faith Alone? If despite their insperable relationship, you hold works and deeds as distinct, then Faith Alone is false.

>>11703609
That's a dumb way to phrase the question, as the answer is it is both.

You have love, as you give love.

>>11703365
>Except that you didn't prove that trinity is true to the nature of God. Your entire argument bases itself on a hypothetical and unproven claim which you never even advanced any argument in favor of.
Are you stupid? Do you understand what an if/then statement is???

Here's the logic that is valid (in the technical sense, not the colloquial term):

P1: The Trinity is a true attribute of God's nature (this statement is "T").
P2: In Christianity, the Trinity is of God's nature.
P3: Every other religion does not contain the Trinity as in God's nature.
P4: If T, then God's nature is Trinitarian.
P4: given P1 and P4, God's nature is Triniatarian.
P5: If God's nature iS Trinitarian, the God is the Christian God and cannot be fully encompassed by any other religion.
C: given p4 and p3, God is the Christian God.

It is VALID logic. Validity means the premises lead to the conclusions logically (it does not refer to the truth values of the premises). Soundness would mean the the argument is valid(logic is consistent) and the premises are true.

I was not talking about soundness. I was showing you that all one must do to prove what is the true concept of God would be to prove the unique quality of that concept.

Totally fine if you want to argue about the truth of the premise that God is a Trinity. Thats the crux of the issue. But we were not exactly talking about that. We were discussing whether or not proving a uniqueness would disprove other concepts that lack that uniqueness. We seem to agree on that.

If you want to talk about the truth value of the premise, God is a Trinity, fine. It's a different game to play is what I'm getting it; seems like you're conflating and mixing things together.

>>11703327
I'm not the atheist you are arguing with. Just pointing out how your argument looks. (And any argument that goes 'you have to go read a ton of crap first ') An argument isn't an opportunity to assign homework.

>>11703633
Not the anon you're responding to, but I think you missed his point. This argument shows why, if God is a trinity, God is the Christian God. It seems like what he's asking for is an argument for why God must be a trinity. That said, anon has been doing nothing but moving the goalposts. I think your argument answers his first question, but not his second (which he didn't ask except to accuse you of not answering it to begin with).

>>11703633
Your triangle God cannot be the truth because the trinity has no OPPOSITE. A square has an opposite, a square is the first true nature of Reality. You must ascend to time cube principle.

>>11703617
I just got back from the gym, I've been phone posting.

>if we are saved by faith alone, then what duties do we have other than to believe?
Follow the commandments, obviously and belief is not faith.
>And as you said, works are not faith. So if we can be saved without works, then how are works necessary?
God can save anyone he pleases.
>If works are not necessary, then how can it be called a duty?
Commandments are law.
>If works are not faith, but works are necessary, then we are not saved by works alone.
Works are works of Faith. Get this clear into your head.
>If faith can exist without action, then how can faith be lost by wrong action?
By unrepentence.
>Do you see how you are walking a fine line of equivocation?
Yes, the path is very fine.
> If I do evil, but believe in God, am I saved?
No, you would be a blasphemer.
>How can I believe in God if I do evil?
As said above in another post, even demons believe in God. Yet they deny his sovereign power.
>If evil deeds negate faith, than faith cannot be separated from deeds.
You're deny the power of Christs forgiveness, your idea is wrong.
>If faith cannot be separated from deeds, then in what way is it meaningful to say Faith Alone?
Because faith alone is the seed for transpiration and growth.
>If despite their insperable relationship, you hold works and deeds as distinct,
I do not.
>then Faith Alone is false.
Wrong.

>>11703672
God has no opposite as he is totallity, even totallity acknowleges the presence of the infinite void. How do you not see this?

>>11703665
>*tips monster energy drink* *glug* *glug* *glug*
I'm not the guy you're replying to. Just pointing out how smug you look. (Christianity is ~2000 years old religion; if you want to question its fundamental theology, you should probably read its fundamental theology first.) An argument isn't an opportunity to parade your ignorance.

>>11703679
Fraudulent ONEness of religious
academia has retarded your opposite
rationale brain to a half brain slave.

Life is pulsing opposite mirror Pairs,
Death is ONEness of Godism.

One - Does not Exist
Except in Death State
ONE Is a Demonic Religious Lie

>>11703672
Man, I remember the aughties. What good (read bad) times.

>>11703694
Bro it sounds like you might be facing mental illness, I ask you to discover Love.

>>11703675
I asked you to explain yourself. You explained nothing. You are reciting dogma. I'm not asking you what is the case, I'm asking you how it is the case. What makes it so? What is the order of its operations? Stop telling me what you think is true, and start telling me why you think it's true.

>>11703698
I love you too, anon

>>11703698
Learn your memes dude.
http://timecube.2enp.com/

>>11703668
>Totally fine if you want to argue about the truth of the premise that God is a Trinity. Thats the crux of the issue. But we were not exactly talking about that. We were discussing whether or not proving a uniqueness would disprove other concepts that lack that uniqueness. We seem to agree on that.
I am fully aware of that. It's just a pain in the ass when someone switches around different issues and different arguments. It looks like he is getting confused. He may not be, but he seems to be all over the place.

>That said, anon has been doing nothing but moving the goalposts.
Well put. I'm cool with him arguing about other things, he just needs to be very clear, which he seems not to be doing.

>>11703716
He's a maturbatory pest. He doesn't understand any of the terms he's using, and is constantly changing his argument. I've made a number of criticism now that he's yet to reply to.

Just prove the Trinity thing already, stop squabbling over who shot first.
I wanna see anon's Trinity proof, out of pure curiosity at this point.

>>11703689
Sorry, your response is invalid unless you read all of knowyourmeme first

>>11703716
Ok, would you explain to me why the trinity is a necessary quality of God?

>>11703427
>Aquinas would literally want me dead for the things I've said in this thread.
If you're actively trying to subvert the Church and the Crown, yeah he'd want you dead; heresy that is intent on destroying society and not innocent would warrant capital punishment. You seem more curious than subversive, though. So calm down. And how are you to make a judgement like that? You've never read Aquinas and you seem not to know Christianity nor middle age politics either.

You seem to have uninformed conceptions about Christianity and they seem to bar you from having faith. Realize that you don't know authentic Christianity, so take a chance to get familiar; it will not bite you. It invites.
You should be more open to read him. If it is faith you desire, why do you deny the ways to it?

>>11703520
What kind of God cowers from rationality? Why is he afraid to show himself in rational sense? If providence is one of God's aspects, then he will know that people like me will not follow his words, not on faith alone.

>>11703730
>He doesn't understand any of the terms he's using, and is constantly changing his argument.
Undoubtedly.

>>11703706
Then word your questions in a clearee sense with proper intentions. I have provided my ideas, you have to tell me why you do not believe in them.
Like I said, pray on this topic and this will be revealed to you.

>>11703750
>If it is faith you desire, why do you deny the ways to it?
Why wouldn't I pick Islam over Christianity?

>>11703751
Like I said. You are egocentric. You are not owed an explanation. You are not owed anything. God has already given you everything. The evidence is all around you. I even gave an argument, which you either chose not to read, or chose not to respond to. You also need to work on your reading comprehension; then again, it's not surprising that the self-centered project their opinion onto all things. God does not cower from rationality. It is not that reason is lacking, but that to see the full proof of God would require you to see the entirety of God. God is the source of all things. You are asking for an external explanation, but nothing is external to God. There is no outsider perspective. You think your nature is fixed, that you are eminently reasonable and God must change reality to fit your perception; this is backward. God is the only immutable, and he has shaped existence so that you might fit in it. Stop looking inward. Look to God. Cross the void.

>>11703799
Because Islam is not consistent with itself and lacks the poetry of life.

>>11703751
Dude. This is not orthodox.....

Stop engaging with it. God does not cower from reason. God shows Himself in the rational sense; Christ is the Divine Logos, the order of the universe.

Faith fulfills reason, Grace perfects nature.

Christian revelation completes Greek philosophy. You probably don't know that Catholic philosophy is very influenced by Plato and Aristotle. Real Christianity has never shunned away from reason.

>>11703804
If Faith is the only requirement for salvation, how can there be other requirements?

If there are other requirements, then why say that we are saved by Faith Alone?

>>11703799
You would have to discern as to what was really Divine Revelation. Don't get butthurt that this might exceed natural philosophy, but what did you expect when you compare two theologies? They agree (mostly) in natural philosophy, but differ in theology. So, that's the playing field.

Did I really need to explain that? I feel like I had to, given the amount of stupidity throughout this entire thread.

>>11703763
If Faith is the only requirement for salvation, how can there be other requirements?

If there are other requirements, then why say that we are saved by Faith Alone?

>>11703826
>If Faith is the only requirement for salvation
It's not.

Firstly, salvation is not earned. Secondly, faith is dependent upon works (love, humility, charity, etc.). As scripture says "faith is death if it does not have works."

>then why say that we are saved by Faith Alone?
No true Christian says that. That is heresy.

this is a diff anon btw

>>11703832
>>11703838

>>11703828
If two views disagree in theology, they disagree in natural philosophy. Theology is an explanation of the underpinnings of reality, of being, i.e. of nature.

>>11703838
Please read the chain of interactions. Other anon and I are having a disagreement. I'm asking these questions just to try and get some clarity from him

In my experience we're looking at dualities here, not trinities. Consider the following dualities.

Self/World
Subjective/Objective
Invention/Discovery
Mind/Brain
Code/Data
Verbs/Nouns
Change/Stasis
Chaos/Order
AI/VR [artificial self vs. artificial world]
Instrumental Rationality / Epistemic Rationality
Low Prediction Uncertainty / Low Model Uncertainty (Karl Friston)
Goo/prickles (personality metaphor)
Happiness/Truth
Abstract/concrete
far/near mode thinking (Hanson)
fast/slow thinking (Kahneman)
intuition/logic (Poincare)
Problem solvers / Theory builders (Gowers)

If you squint a bit, these dualities are all different variations of the same duality.
And for each duality there is an associated enlightenment where you realize the duality is just two ends of one single stick.
For example, the so-called "LISP Enlightenment" is when programmers realize on a gut level that code is data.
Buddhist enlightenment of course involves the self/world dichotomy.

>>11703425
>then become smug and arrogant when an anon can't summarize millennia of explanation into a single post.
fr man; dude is ridiculous

>>11702327
>some just find it difficult to let go of their childhood stories (most religious people just follow whatever their parents taught them as children). when you grow up, you should put away childish things like stories about magic

Believing in the truth because its what your parents taught you doesn't make it untrue. If you don't seek truth yourself that is your fault, not truth's fault.

>>11703860
You do not see the mystical side of the trinity, this is your downfall.

>>11703869
Anon, I don't even see the mystical side of the dualities I just listed. In the end they're just categories we're using to organize the world, and enlightenments are just some kind of brain thing.

>>11703844
This is retarded and not true.
Literally Catholic and Muslim philosophers think of God as the unmoved mover (same natural philosophy), yet they differ in theology. Please see Aquinas and Avicenna (who influenced Aquinas). There is the counter example; your claim is false.

>>11703855
Good luck. You aren' going to get a lot of clarity from "faith alone," just banal platitudes and logical inconsistencies. Do yourself a favor and research Catholic theology and philosophy, so that you may get an understanding of the interactions between faith and reason.

>>11703860
The negation of trinity is not duality...

the negation of "x=3" is not "x=2."
learn logic before you get on here.

>>11703896
I didn't say anything about "negating a trinity". Not even sure what you mean by that.

>>11703816
>>11703804
Well thanks for your time. I tried reading some newer apologetics (just finished Soul of the World) to find some trace of God but nothing ever convinces me. There is nothing that materialistic/darwinist view explains better and it's one of the biggest disappointments to me. I expected more from life.

>>11703912
Read Aquinas, read up in Natural law Theory

It's a waste of time trying to make the nature of God a mathematical equation. You have to experience God on a personal level to enter into heaven, all this other shit is just gonna make you nihilistic

>>11703908
Just because there are dualities does not mean there are not trinities (including the more important issue, it doesn't mean God is not a Trinity).

>>11703912
Hey, don't be so glum. Love is still real. And math is cool and has monsters in it. Consciousness is cool. The distant future could be amazing...as long as we don't go extinct. The universe is still huge. And the things you love and care about are still here. And heck, we could have Gods too, if we build them. We might even become them.

>>11703923
Nah, OP's task was to prove that God had to be a Trinity, necessarily. To show that he doesn't necessarily have to be a trinity, you just have to provide one counterexample, a way he could be something else. And as long as we're calling any neat way of organizing the world "God", those dualities do just fine.

BTW you'll notice I started that list straight from OP's post. He lists subjective, objective, and self. That's two halves of one duality (subective/objective) and half of an equivalent duality (self/world).

The other part of the original post that stands out to me is that there's an attempt to drop naming and words, a very high level pattern that humans made, into the bottom layer of reality, with all the math. Yeech.

>prove me wrong
>some gobbledygook

>>11703864
Can you judge what is the truth unless you've actually investigated all the claims that have major followings? There are like a billion Hindus in the world, have you tried to believe as they do? Maybe they have the truth and your family tradition is a false belief

>>11703860
We're talking about THE trinity though. Whether or not we can come up with other dualities for the sake of dialectics is completely irrelevant. People like coming up with dichotomies because they create great contrast for pedagogical demonstration, but what bearing does that have on metaphysical structures?
>if you squint a bit, they're all the same
Thanks for showing us that you're just projecting. Obviously all dichotomies share the fact that they are dichotomies. That doesn't tell us anything other than the fact that dichotomies can exist.

Also, most of the dichotomies you list are false.

>>11703884
Natural philosophy is literally an extension of theology. It's the philosophy of nature. Don't use terms if you don't know what they mean.

Further, it doesn't matter if both claim a creator God if they don't assign the same qualities to it. If the creator creates everything, then everything is imbued with the qualities of the creator. Because they have different theologies, they inherently and unavoidable produce incompatible conceptions of creation, and therefore materiality.

>>11703964
Go back to 9gag

>>11704056
The truth is true.
If something is not the truth, it is not true.
If someone knows something is true, everything that contradicts it is therefore known to be false. It doesn't need to be investigated. It's elementary logic, literally the beginning of every logic textbook.

>>11703425
There is nothing wrong with asking people to back up what they say by producing logical explanations for it, one of the posters I was replying to implied that Aquinas logically proved that it was the specifically the Christian God which was true and I found that claim ridiculous and rightfully asked for an explanation, which nobody in this thread seems capable of providing.

>>11703385
That's hardly a logical argument, oracles and prophecies are found in almost every religious tradition. Very old Hindu texts perfectly describe the modern world in their description of the Kali Yuga, but I'm sure you wouldn't be willing to admit on that basis that Hinduism is true.

>>11703633
Yes, I'm asking specifically why you think the God as trinity is true and whether you can provide any logical arguments in support of it. That should have been clear from the beginning in the earlier posts I made when I asked you to argue 'why' instead of 'how' you are prove it.

>>11704510
>implied that Aquinas logically proved that it was the specifically the Christian God
I think he said Aquinas proved God as the unmoved mover. And then proposed to prove the distinction of the Christian God. He did not say that Aquinas did so, though Aquinas could have.

>>11704510
>trinity
The other problem is (besides no one actually doing it), even if God must be a trinity that won't make the Christian God the one true god. It just would mean none of the other religions are true. Maybe Christians just got lucky. Maybe some early christian also thought up this logical proof and incorporated it into their gospel. It wouldn't make any other parts of the doctrine true. Particularly it doesn't mean Jesus is God, just some mortal was/is/will be.

>>11704524
He implied in this post >>11702993 that Aquinas proved or argued well from reason that it was specifically the Christian God of the OT/NT which is true.

>Do you not understand that? If I wanted to argue for the Christian God from light of natural reason (not yet by light of revelation), I would move on from Summa Q2 (as you clearly have not) to the latter questions about divine attributes and such, that argue in favor of the Christian God

The only reason I've been posting in this thread is because I wanted people to bring the best arguments for why it's specifically the Christian trinity God which is the truth but I haven't seen any. If people still want to post some I'd happily consider them and reply back.

>>11704564
http://www.aquinasblog.com/16-trinity.html

>>11704757
>http://www.aquinasblog.com/16-trinity.html

>For Aquinas, the Trinity is at the heart of Christian teaching, and our understanding of it comes solely from Scripture (and church teaching which conforms to Scripture). He thinks we can reason to the existence of God, but not to the Trinity; if we know about the Trinity, it's only because of what Christ has said, not because of anything we could have figured out for ourselves.

DROPPED

>>11704543
Except that the concept of the trinity was originally propounded, and has only ever been suggested, by Jesus of Nazareth.

You cannot have stronger evidence of a religion than to have a revealed truth, impossible to conceive of without revelation, credited to God himself. If the Trinity is true, the only debate left is between the Christian denominations.

>>11704510
Except you asked him to give Aquinas' argument for a dualist Skyfather, which cannot be done, because Aquinas never argued such a thing, because the Christian God is neither dualist nor a skyfather. When multipe anons, including me, tried to explain that the God is a trinity (as this thread began with), you first dismissed us, handwaved that the Christian God was the same as other Gods, and complained that we didn't give you an argument which does not exist.

>>11704794
>You cannot have stronger evidence of a religion than to have a revealed truth, impossible to conceive of without revelation, credited to God himself.

Hindus and Muslims both claim the exact same thing about their religions.

>If the Trinity is true, the only debate left is between the Christian denominations.

And that's the one thing christ-posters seem incapable of providing any coherent reason or argument for, and as it turns out even Aquinas didn't try to prove it through reason. So it's still all just a big hypothetical 'what if' that applies in the same degree to almost every other religion.

>>11704824
>Except you asked him to give Aquinas' argument for a dualist Skyfather, which cannot be done, because Aquinas never argued such a thing, because the Christian God is neither dualist nor a skyfather. When multipe anons, including me, tried to explain that the God is a trinity (as this thread began with), you first dismissed us, handwaved that the Christian God was the same as other Gods, and complained that we didn't give you an argument which does not exist.

The skyfather part was just a jibe but anything that posits that there is an immutable difference between God and the individual soul can be considered dualist in that sense, even if it's not dualist in the sense of reducing everything to a duality in a way that precludes a trinity. The Christian God is partially dualist or can be considered dualist in how it's regarded as immutably separate from living beings but is not dualist in the sense that you guys are harping on about. I know that there is some subtlety there and that it might be difficult to grasp but consider it carefully so I don't have to repeat myself for the 4th time. Dualism has more than one meaning and in the study of eastern thought it's sometimes used in that sense.

I never dismissed anyone or handwaved anyone but stated very clearly that under whatever framework you want to consider it, the semantics about dualism/trinity is irrelevant for the purposes of the present discussion which was that all I was interested in was hearing a good argument for why it's specifically the Christian god which is true, under whatever framework or distinction you want to view it, trinity included. I'm still waiting for anyone to post a good argument...

>>11704835
You're moving the goalposts. You said, if God is a trinity, there's a chance that the Christians just got lucky. But that's not possible. That's all I was responding to.

>>11704794
Not sure why it'd be impossible to conceive. If there is a logical argument of its proof, then anyone can create the logic. The premises of the argument aren't even that weird compared to some of the stuff in world mythology.
Also, a personal experience of divine light is stronger evidence than ancient revelations.

>>11704897
You are talking to more than one person. I said maybe christians got lucky. And here is my response >>11704912
I guess I'd add, now you have to prove the revelation was divine rather than lucky. You didn't really solve anything.
Are you new here?

>>11704897
I'm actually not the anon who posted that, he is a separate one from the way who started this debate (me). Setting his point aside, everything else I've said remains true. There still isn't any compelling reason to regard the trinity as more or less true than the celestial Buddhas of Mahayana or Ganesha the elephant god from Hinduism.

>>11704890
No, it cannot. That is not what dualist means in any sense. You are the first person known to ever use it in that way, and you have yet to provide good argument for that usage. That there is an immutable difference between God and Man does not suggest any kind of duality. God is immutably different from all things that are not God, as is Man immutably different from all things that are not Man, whether that be squirrel or squid or God. We're not "harping on about" anything. You are using a known term in an argument in a completely different way than how it is known. You are trying to make comparisons between religions, and yet you are incorrectly using one of the most basic terms. Most major heretical sects have been deemed heretical based on their dualist nature. Worst of all, two things being immutably separate or distinct is not duality in any sense.

In terms of handwaving, you are even doing it now. Despite the insistence (which I can't believe is even necessary) that the Christian God is a trinity, you continue to insist that it doesn't matter.

It is impossible to prove that the Christian God is true if you continue to equivocate and conflate. If you cannot understand what a duality is, if you do not know what dualism is, if you think essential distinctions are essentially the same, if you think calling the Christian God a skyfather even makes sense as a joke, then there is literally not a single theological concept that can be explained to you.

>>11704921
>If God speaks to you, how do you know it was God

>>11704912
A maze is easier to solve going backward than forward. By suggesting that some argument about the fundamental nature of being is lucky, you're suggest that these arguments are plucked from thin air. But they are not. They are cultivated from observation and analysis. The number of possible answers is larger than the universe itself. For each shape suggested, there are just as infinite a number of variations.

So, what are the chances that the singular correct answer was seemingly plucked out of thin air, without precedent, without suggestion, and put forward by a beggar? Zero.

It's not that it is an impossible idea, but that it lacks any reason for being conceived. There is no reason to suggest the concept without have first seen the concept. Once the concept of the trinity is looked at, evidence can be found, but that evidence wouldn't be seen without having first seeing the trinity.

You argument is sort of like hitting someone with their own hand, and telling them to stop punching themselves.

>>11704963
>No, it cannot. That is not what dualist means in any sense. You are the first person known to ever use it in that way, and you have yet to provide good argument for that usage.
Yes, dvaita vedanta is specifically referred to as dualism or dualistic vedanta just as advaita is referred to as non-dualism. This is despite the supreme godhead incarnating as various avatars that are caused by/manifested by the supreme godhead. That's a specific example of a theology that is referred to as dualist despite the god having various aspects/manifestations that are part of it and inseperable from it like the Christian trinity (without saying they are strictly equivalent before you sperg out at me)

>You are trying to make comparisons between religions, and yet you are incorrectly using one of the most basic terms. Most major heretical sects have been deemed heretical based on their dualist nature.
This is wholly irrelevant because I have stated multiple times that I'm solely interested in hearing arguments for why the Christian idea of God is true including the idea of it as trinity. You keep attacking me on this even though I don't care at all because you can't provide any serious response to me asking for serious arguments about God, it's embarrassing desu.

>That there is an immutable difference between God and Man does not suggest any kind of duality.
>Worst of all, two things being immutably separate or distinct is not duality in any sense.
Listen, I know that you had the misconception that duality only has the meaning you learned it had in your studies of Christianity, but in the larger field of eastern thought/metaphysics/philosophy it can have a range of slightly differing meanings. Dualism in a broader sense just means a pair of anything that be conceptualized as opposing each other or being separate from one another. Dualism does not imply in any way that there is equality or equivalence between the two.

>Despite the insistence (which I can't believe is even necessary) that the Christian God is a trinity, you continue to insist that it doesn't matter.
Because all I care is hearing good arguments for why it's true you autist! I Don't disagree that it's a trinity or not a duality under the way you understand that term, that has been clear for the last 10 posts! Stop ignoring my central point!

>It is impossible to prove that the Christian God is true if you continue to equivocate and conflate. If you cannot understand what a duality is, if you do not know what dualism is
STFU about dualism and try to give a good argument for why the Christian God is true or stop posting, it's like talking to a brick wall with you people Jesus Christ!

>>11705084
Do you want to know what's more infuriating than talking to a brick wall? Trying to argue with the wind.

I'm trying to tell you that conversation is impossible if you have a language all your own.

>>11700546
prove it

>>11705163
>I'm trying to tell you that conversation is impossible if you have a language all your own.

We can't even have a conversation if you refuse to move past this point which does not even remotely pertain to me wanting to hear an argument for why the trinity god is correct using logic. I came into this thread hoping to be impressed with the quality of arguments made by Christ-posters because I've seen 1 or 2 good ones before and I've been solely disappointed. I'm willing to debate you on your terms giving these words all the meaning you assign to them, but I can't do so if you can't even put forward any argument.

Pretend that I agree with everything you have to say about the trinity and dualism and give me your best argument.

>>11704768
Sorry! The light of natural reason does have its limits!

>>11704977
The voice of God is speaking to you and you can hear anything else? You'll be lucky to ever hear again.

>>11705036
Depends on the maze. But really do you know any of the history of the crafting of the trinity? It's 300 years of sausage making. An idea where the developer, Gregory of Nazianzus, reveled in it's illogical nature.
But hey maybe they were smart dudes and somehow by killing each other for decades they found the right answer. Don't see why it can't be luck. Or maybe might does make right.

What I would like to see is this proof the trinity is a necessary quality of God is we've all been waiting for.

>>11705293
I'm extensively familiar with eastern texts which treat that topic from every angle. I just wanted to pop in to see if the oft-repeated meme that Aquinas 'proved Christianity' etc had any merit but it turns out his arguments were not more than basic theological arguments also used by Hindus themselves many hundreds of years before him. There is nothing wrong with those, but I just wanted to see if anyone could summarize whether he attempted to prove it logically or whether they themselves could.

I actually respect Aquinas more for properly realizing that logic doesn't extend past a certain limit and that there are things which go beyond it, but Christ-posters should stop pretending like he proved Christianity true beyond the existence of an immutable first cause which is God (found in almost every religion) because you embarrass yourselves and make him look bad when you pretend otherwise (which is not to say OP or anyone in this thread specifically did this but I do see it often, like 40-50% of all the Aquinas threads I see say something like that in the first post).

>>11705353
Cmon, Aquinas definitely went further than the five ways. But I do understand your sentiment.

>>11700199
Your post code is just upside down for 66, the two-thirds of the number of the beast.