/lit/ - Literature

No clue that is why orthodox use different arguments

>>13998701
He never offered any solid arguments for why specifically it was the Christian God that was true, he didnt claim to have proved it and said that the trinity had to be accepted on faith and not by logic

>>13998701
Are you retarded? Pretty much all the sources in the Summa are from Christian theology and the Bible

>>13998701
He proved Brahman

It's not a question of metaphysics, but history. Christians are making a historical argument that starts with certain facts from the gospels and other sources which almost all historians agree are reliable, whether they're from secular or religious backgrounds. That is, Jesus was a real person and was crucified, the tomb his body was place in was discovered to be empty, and multiple people from different times and places claimed to have encountered the living Jesus after his crucifixion.

Now because Jesus was crucified, it's reasonable to believe he really died. He was placed in a guarded tomb because it was in the best interest of the Jewish and Roman authorities to make sure that the body didn't disappear or any other funny business took place because the Romans were putting down a rebellion and the Jews were putting down a heresy. We know the body truly disappeared because the Jews accused the Christians of stealing the body.

There's only a few possible explanations for this event but I think only one of them are truly plausible. There's the hallucination hypothesis which accuses the followers of hallucinating the post crucifixion appearance but this doesn't make any sense because multiple people at multiple times and places claimed to have experienced the risen Christ and real world hallucinations don't work like that. This also fails to explain the radical conversion of Paul who was one of the greatest prosecutors of the early Christians and overnight became the most devoted follower after Jesus is said to have met him on the road.

There's also the "greed hypothesis" which accuses the followers of making it all up in play for political power but that doesn't seem like a very convincing incentive since many of the apostles and followers of Christ were tortured and martyred. They were never very rich and as a group and they never really gained much power until hundreds of years later.

To me the most reasonable explanation which accounts for all the facts is that Jesus is who he said and was and demonstrated it to everyone by dying and resurrecting himself.

>>13998799
sounds good anon, saved. Thanks

>>13998701
I was reading Schopenhauer recently and he mentioned early on that, Aristotle wrote on that what Aquinas really engaged in with the ontological argument was defining God but that the definition of one thing has not bearing on its existence.

>>13998701
>assuming Thomas Aquinas objectively proved the existence of God
no need to assume, he did prove it

> why would it be the Christian God, and why did he believe it was the Christian God
>>13998721
>>13998742
this guy >>13998799 mostly has it right

it was literally just faith, remember most people believed in god, it was the NATURE of god that you have faith in

>>13998701
>assuming Thomas Aquinas objectively proved the existence of God,
He didn't, his arguments are shit

>why would it be the Christian God, and why did he believe it was the Christian God?
He thought it was the Christian God because that belief was ingrained in his cultural environment, it's not like he had an argument or something

>>13998799
There is also the hypothesis that the New Testament is essentially an allegorical work and was originally read as such.

>>13998885
which of his arguments are shit and why

>>13998886
I don't think anyone can seriously argue that. It's an absurdity in the most literal sense.

>>13998891
For example the argument from motion relies on the premise of accepting the interpretation of change in terms of the distinction between potency/actuality. If you don't accept it the argument can't work, and he doesn't really gives an argument as to why you have to accept it.

>>13998915
can you elaborate on what you think would be an alternative response to the question he poses which is more plausible? I'm curious

>>13998799
>le historians know Jesus was real
don't fall for this meme kids

>>13998911
>I don't think anyone can seriously argue that. It's an absurdity in the most literal sense.
Nice, please give an argument.

>>13998936
Explain religious opponents citing his existence and the very fact of the Christian religion

>>13998799
With all respect to you, and as someone who is pretty ignorant to the whole scholarly-historical aspect of Christianity: If Jesus is truly a part of some form of external, omnipresent Godhead, why could He not simply reveal this to the whole world at once, instead of being known solely as a character from one cultural set of scriptures? Everyone would believe in Jesus, if Jesus would communicate directly to them. And in doing so, the existence of the Bible would be superfluous and simply clumsy relative to the immediate correspondence one could have.

So if Jesus was indeed not merely a man without supernatural ability, nor a man with the power of sorcery, but actually one third of a Triune God which created the entire universe itself, then could Jesus not simply broadcast himself to the whole world, mentally or physically, at once? I'm open to believing all kinds of things, such as the genuine resurrection of a first-century sage from Nazareth (the Shroud of Turin is a very interesting document), but believing in him as having fashioned the universe is beyond my ability to accept. Much of Christianity's claims don't seem to come together for me, in that the grandiosity of the assertions do not seem matched by the mode of their presentation.

>>13998939
You haven't made an argument for me to address, you only said that the entire new testament was allegorical. Give me a reason to believe it should read that way.

The world is eternal.
Aquinas can't therefore be right on a fundamental basis of his argument.

>>13998945
explaining either of those things wouldn't show if Jesus was a real guy or not

>>13998953
You ask me why he could not do this or that, but this assumes that he couldn't do this or that. He could reveal himself to everybody in a way to satisfy you, but he chooses not to for his reason. All we can do is speculate on what those reasons are. I think it's because a certain degree of doubt is required for us to truly love him, and us loving him is his primary goal in creating us. If we can't reject him, we can't truly love him.

>>13998954
>You haven't made an argument for me to address, you only said that the entire new testament was allegorical.
>the entire
Nope never said that, I said it was essentially an allegorical work.

Argue against this or stay quiet.

>>13998701
>Metaphysics thread!!
>Christian 'God'
Pick 1, this is just a religion thread.

>>13998970
If you want to have a conversation with me you're going to have to explain what exactly you mean by an "essentially allegorical work" and give me a reason to believe it should be read that way. I'm not going to play stupid games with you.

>>13998886
which is a heresy

>>13998978
>If you want to have a conversation with me you're going to have to explain what exactly you mean by an "essentially allegorical work" and give me a reason to believe it should be read that way. I'm not going to play stupid games with you.
Again, arque against me or stay quiet.

>>13998987
>which is a heresy
Why?

>>13999002
I don't know what your point is because you won't argue it.

>>13998966
What the fuck are you talking about, a historian of a religion that is in direct competition with the doctrine of Jesus and the very existence of the faith are very solid arguements in favour of his existence when discussing things. It would make very little sense for Christianity to spread like it did without Jesus whether or not he was actually divine

>>13998962
>the world is eternal
proof?

>>13999011
>I don't know what your point is because you won't argue it.
No, dont turn this around, either debate me or stay quiet.

>>13998936
Which meme should they fall, then?

>>13999013
wrong.

>>13999023
This isn't a trick, I legitimately don't know what you're arguing for. When you said the new testament was an "essentially allegorical" work I assumed you meant to say that the new testament was allegorical, but you said I interpreted you wrongly and then didn't say anything other than giving debate challenges. You're not even a midwit.

>>13998969
Thank you for your interpretation, anon.

>>13999043
Wow, you really crushed me with that

>>13999050
>You're not even a midwit.
Last chance, debate me or keep quiet.

>>13999067
What do you mean by last chance, are you going to punish me?

>>13999075
>What do you mean by last chance, are you going to punish me?
I will now no longer respond to you.

>>13999052
thank you

>>13999084
Yeah because you're afraid

>>13998931
I would get rid of the idea of "potential being" as a distinct ontological realm altogether. So when a thunder strucks a house and burns it down, my explanation won't be that the house has the property of being "potentially burned" which exists in a different realm, and that the thunder has inside it a power that takes the potential out of the realm of possibility and makes it actual. Instead, the explanation would only use items that can be observed, so we know that both the thunder and the house are made up from atoms, atoms follow certain natural laws that are describable with the language of physics etc.

>>13999364
A Thomist wouldn't say that there's a potential for a house to burned by lightening that exists in some third realm, but rather that the potential for being burned down is intrinsic to the house. It's a part of the houses nature to burn down when sufficient heat is applied to it.

I think this talk of atoms is just kicking the metaphysical can down the road but ultimately ending up agreeing with Aquinas. I mean that it's no different to say that it's the nature of the atoms that constitute the house to burn down when sufficient heat is applied to it, instead of saying it's the merely the nature of the house to burn down.

>>13999093
I'm not afraid of an argumentless fool like you.

>>13999440
You responded to me again

Now that the dust has settled; what was Anselm of Canterbury's proof?

>>13998701
It doesn't, that's why it's not a very good argument.

>>13998711
This.

>>13999022
In that book.
Also: Penrose' CCC; or "eternal inflation" thingy

>>13999416
If the potential features of eg. a house don't exist in a separate realm but are part of the nature of a house does that mean that the nature of a house is partly potential? That doesn't make much sense. And what exactly is a potential being anyway? I can perfectly understand what a house is, but what exactly is a "potential house", not as a mere way of talking about what may happen in the future but as a concrete thing that exists invisibly somewhere? The whole idea seems to me to make things more unintelligible instead of clarifying them.

On your second point you seem to imply that somehow a scientific explanation has to use the notion of potential being at some point. I don't understand why would that be so. Why can't we just talk about actual things affecting other actual things, but we have to say instead that actual things take things that are merely potential and actualize them?

>>13998701
>assuming Thomas Aquinas objectively proved the existence of God
He didn't.
Every single one of Aquinas' arguments relies on two assumptions (that I know of):
>1. That an infinite regress is impossible
and
>2. That causality isn't simply an illusion

>>13999536
All composite beings have potential, and this is the only way to make sense of change. This is essentially the solution that Aristotle introduced to refute Parmenides argument against change. I made post in another thread explaining it.

>>13998309

The reason this notion of actual things affecting other actual things doesn't make any sense is because something can't move something else that is itself movement. There's no way for act to actually affect act. There has to be something with the potential to move before it can actually begin to move.

>>13999583
Change (or causality) isn't real:

>Here is someone who has never seen a cat. He is looking through a narrow slit in a fence, and, on the other side, a cat walks by. He sees first the head, then the less distinctly shaped furry trunk, and then the tail. Extraordinary! The cat turns round and walks back, and again he sees the head, and a little later the tail. This sequence begins to look like something regular and reliable. Yet again, the cat turns round, and he witnesses the same regular sequence: first the head, and later the tail. Thereupon he reasons that the event head is the invariable and necessary cause of the event tail, which is the head's effect. This absurd and confusing gobbledygook comes from his failure to see that head and tail go together; they are all one cat.

>The cat wasn't born as a head which, sometime later, caused a tail; it was born all of a piece, a head-tailed cat. Our observer's trouble was that he was watching it through a narrow slit, and couldn't see the whole cat at once.

>>13999456
First of he defines God as this being whose nothing greater can be conceived. Then he points out that you can understand the phrase "a being whose nothing greater can be conceived", hence even if such a being doesn't really exist in reality, it at least exists inside your mind. But then a being that exists in reality is greater than a being that only exists in your mind. Hence, God doesn't only exist in your mind but also exists in reality.

Trololo

>>13998799
Based

>>13999594
What are you hoping to do to my mind by posting this? You can't say change it.

>>13999543
But Aquinas doesn't rely on an infinite regress, in the sense of an infinite procession of events. Aquinas didn't think you could prove, philisophically, that the universe had a beginning.
>Causality=illusion
How can you prove that causality, the very idea itself, is an illusion, though? In fect, to make such a statement is to presume the causal order exists, to which it effects the human mind.

>>13999614
I'm pointing out the flaw in such a proof of God, one that relies on causality. Sadly, almost all proofs of God rely on this - excluding the Leibniz argument, which relies on everything that exists having an explanation (the PSR). The problem with this assumption is that we don't know that for sure, it's simply conjecture. There may be some inexplicable entity in the universe somewhere, and humanity just hasn't found it yet. The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.
>>13999622
>But Aquinas doesn't rely on an infinite regress
Please explain what I'm misinterpreting, then. I'm almost certain he does.
>How can you prove that causality, the very idea itself, is an illusion, though?
See: (>>13999594)

>>13999636
I don't think you answered the question I asked, which is what you were hoping to do to my mind by posting that. Presumably it was to convince me to change my mind, but change requires some sort of causality. Your actions are inconsistent with your philosophy.

>>13999670
>change requires some sort of causality
Didn't I explicitly state that I don't believe change is real either?

>>13999680
Yes, you did. This is why I asked what you were hoping to do with my mind. You say you don't believe change exists but you're hoping to change my mind.

>>13999694
Now you're just playing a word game.

>>13999706
That's a serious argument. Why were you trying to change my mind if change doesn't exist?

>>13999583
First off I don't see whats absurd about saying that something appears where it previously didn't exist. You approach a bunch of sticks, and with the use of a lighter you light them on fire. There was previously no fire, but the pressure of gasses inside the lighter created a fire. Why do we have to say that the fire was always existing in some way, and so we conclude that the fire really did exist before but it was merely in potential form, whatever that mysterious concept is supposed to mean. You just build speculations upon speculations.

Secondly even if we accepted your premise that when something comes to being it must have been already existing in a sense (because it can't come out of nothing), if you introduce potential things you still don't solve the problem. Because then I can still ask you about how is it possible that a potential thing becomes actual? A potential thing is not the same as an actual thing, otherwise something new wouldn't have come into being. Should we also introduce a new class of a semi-actual things that exist between actual and potential things to close the gap? I don't think this is a sound way of doing philosophy, I would rather reject Parmenides' premise and be done with it.

imagine not being open to reality

>>13998799
>the tomb his body was place in was discovered to be empty, and multiple people from different times and places claimed to have encountered the living Jesus after his crucifixion.
No

>>13999741
Dude, you're arguing against my recounting of Parmenides argument as if it was the position I was taking. I've lost all interest in this anyways.

>>13998701
Now I'm not saying I'm God
However
Nobody has ever seen me and God in the same room

>>13999680
>"I don't believe change is real either"

This isn't even true: you don't believe this, even if you think you do.

Anyway, if change isn't real than there is no possible argument you can give to convince anyone of your opinion, because people cannot change their opinions. There is no possible chain of reasoning that can bring you to understand anything, because you cannot change from ignorance to understanding. There is no possible way of learning anything for the same reason.

If you are correct about change, then you have always believed this about change: otherwise you would have changed. If you are correct about change, but people seem to change because we are all stuck in some kind of illusion, then that is quite a shame: we are doomed to be stuck in this illusion forever because we cannot ever change from seeing illusion to seeing reality.

If you are correct about change, then you cannot learn, cannot understand, cannot change anyone's beliefs,cannot be free from illusion, and cannot do anything at all. Enjoy being stuck in that hell.

>>13999729
>>13999807
Change is only perceived. You designate something as an object, and look for a discrepancy in what you previously knew - this is the only way that change can be a real thing. The problem with this, is that the division of singular objects - such as a someone's mind - from the rest of the universe, is strictly a human act done for pragmatic purposes and has no ontological grounding.

>>13999818
>You designate something as an object
Can't do that without change being possible.

>look for a discrepancy in what you previously knew
Can't do that without change being possible.

>The problem with this, is that the division of singular objects - such as a someone's mind - from the rest of the universe, is strictly a human act done for pragmatic purposes and has no ontological grounding.

There cannot be any "actions" leading to a "perception of change" if change isn't real.

Anon, give it up. It isn't going to work.

This isn't to say Parmenides is wrong, by the way. But if you are going to be a Parmenidian your going to have to dwell in silence.

>>13999840
>Can't do that without change being possible.
Incorrect.
>Can't do that without change being possible.
Incorrect.
>There cannot be any "actions" leading to a "perception of change" if change isn't real.
Actions are also a result of perception.

>>13999779
Ah okay then, I thought you were defending Thomist Metaphysics. I have heard this argument before, but I didn't find it strong enough to make me abandon Empiricism.

>>13999848
>result of perception.
Ah, so it is a "result" of perception without there possibly being any causality or change. Please explain how that is supposed to work.

>>13999898
>so it is a "result" of perception without there possibly being any causality or change
It amazes me that you think you're clever by doing this. Yes, it is a "result", but only from a pragmatic standpoint I mentioned here: (>>13999818)

>>13998701
>why would it be the Christian God, and why did he believe it was the Christian God?
Why not read the rest of the summa? Or just look up the answers to these simple questions on either YouTube or Google

>>13998886
Very strange that so many people chose to be persecuted for an allegory. Even more bizarre that Roman consuls ordered an investigation into the Christian communities and what they believe, yet nothing was ever reported about an allegory.

>>13999609
See, this is the kind of stuff I personally appreciate. Discussions of religion which aren't merely sh*t-flinging fests between believers and non-believers, nor where believers simply tell non-believers to "believe" or cite them a passage from the scripture which they've already subscribed their worldview to. The Shroud of Turin is a really interesting document, to me. I'm someone who considers themselves spiritual, but has no official religious identification. I would like to see religious elements be treated in the same fashion anything else is, whereby we can actualy discuss it rationally and without the emotional biases and dogmatic blinders that the religious folk are often shackled into. If you're a Christian, your first instinct is to believe the Shroud of Turin is legitimate. If you're a New Athiest, you're probably going to hold the opposite position. But better is to be neutral, and to simply examine the artifact for what it happens to be. And what is that? I don't know. I won't say. But I think it's possible that a sorcerer, named Yashuah, lived in the first-century, who did bring himself back from death after crucifixion. This does not mean, however, that the teachings ascribed to him were his - nor that a Personal God happens to exist - nor that he himself be a God. All of those claims would have to be examined in the same manner as we've studied the Shroud - but at the very least, maybe there really was a religious teacher who had extraordinary, supernatural ability?

>>13998799
But if there is proof, where do you fit in faith? Not only was Jesus a liar, but it doesn't even make sense to "prove" that a dead jew was really god. You're supposed to just believe it despite any evidence or lack thereof.

>>13998799
The Minimal Facts argument for the resurrection is not history, but apologetics

>>13998799
>almost all historians agree
This, 99% of scientists agree that global warming is caused by white people who must pay more taxes as penance

>>13998701
>assuming Thomas Aquinas objectively proved the existence of God
big assumption

>>14000357
A proof is something a rational person absolutely must accept. The historical argument is not a proof, but it is a reason to believe. I don't know what you think faith is but I define it as holding on to what your intellect or reasons knows to be true. You're probably thinking o fit as a blind or ignorant acceptance of something without reason but you can see for yourself that it isn't something that I'm doing. I have reasons to believe and you responded to one.

>>14000375
I don't understand the distinction you're making between apologetics and history. An apology is a defense and it's not something that is necessarily contrary to any historical method or anything else.

>>13999916
You haven't explained anything. You keep explaining how there is no change or causality in terms of causality. It would be fine if you admitted that you were simply spooling out a myth, because you are talking about how language misleads us, but you seem to think that you are actually arguing. You aren't. You keep contradicting yourself.

It is as if you said "there is no truth" and someone said "well you are asserting a truth when you say that" and you responded "but from my standpoint there is no truth, because all is flux" and someone said "well you assert all is flux, and use it as evidence so you obviously believe that is true", and you responded "but there is no truth, as I have explained."

Your series of posts demonstrates an intellect completely incapable of thought, so caught up in their own ego that they are unable to admit that possibly their freshman-level vomiting-up of Parmenides is incoherent, and that they did not in fact know what they think they know. You are one of those "so-called" philosophers, the "Late-learners" that Plato sneers at, who have caught a rather stupid idea and cling onto it for dear life. Pathetic.

>>14000390
Minimal Facts doesn't follow mainstream historical methods.

>>13999604
This argument is so fucking stupid, it might actually be sound.

>>13998799
I’m a Catholic, but secular historians do not agree with most of what you’re talking about. A really major theory about early Christianity is that it was invented out of whole cloth by Romans who needed a uniting ideology to get the pagans and Jews to get along and turn their devotion to Rome that could feel authentically bottom-up instead of imposed. Stories like Constantines conversion help to move the locus of power outside of the natural realm and have a lot of resonance with the way that early Chinese emperors used oracle bones and communing with the ancestors to justify themselves as important intermediaries that were metaphysically necessary but less than materially accountable if shit went south

Catholics deliberately make bad arguments in order to destroy Christianity because they are Atheists.