Five Proofs of the Existence of God

[Anonymous No.12492675]

Anyone read this? How is it? Legit?

[Anonymous No.12492704]

>>12492675
yeah, it's pretty good - though it failed to convince me that the perfectly actual actualizer its proofs are based on must necessarily be an intelligence
it's certainly arguing at a level well beyond that which is discussed by "new atheists"

even if i were fully convinced by the arguments it lays out, i don't know if i could ever be convinced that the christian god is truth
such arguments tend to lose me around the "necessarily tripartite nature of god," etc.

if i were to become christian, it would be based on mythopoetic grounds.

[Anonymous No.12492784]

>>12492704
>St. Thomas: that God is Intelligent
https://dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraGentiles1.htm#44

So, say you've convinced someone of the philosophical God of metaphysics, pure act with all the divine attributes—particularly goodness itself.

>What is your next step in bringing this person to Christianity?

Firstly, I’d suggest that you single out one unique aspect of Christianity. If you can prove that one part of Christianity, unique to all other religions, then by the law of non-contradiction, whatever religion that claims to be true must have that unique part to it. The Incarnation is unique to all other religions. If you were to prove it—inductively or deductively (we’ll do inductive)—, then only Christianity could be true, for it is the only religion that maintains incarnational dogma.

>Is the Incarnation possible?

I answer yes. There are substances that exist. There is divine substance, intellectual (spiritual) substance, sentient/animal substance, vegetative substance, and mineral substance. What possible combinations are there? It doesn’t really matter how many. But there are two of our interest. We can combine different substances together and it is possible that they exist or will exist. Is it possible for a substance that is intellectual, animal, vegetative, and mineral to exist? Yes, it is possible, but we know actually that this substance is the human substance, a man. Is it possible for a substance that is intellectual, animal, vegetative, mineral, and divine to exist? It is possible. A substance of this nature appears to be like that of Christ, given His hypostatic union, the divine substance uniting to the intellectual, the animal, the vegetative, and the mineral substances, the human substance in full. It seems that the incarnation is possible.

>Is the Incarnation Plausible? Is it fitting for the Word of God to become Incarnate?

>St. Thomas answers the question “Is the Incarnation Fitting?” This is a good resource to look to: http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4001.htm

This guy on Youtube, also has a video arguing from the self-diffusiveness of the good. In simpler terms, good begets good and essentially “outpours” itself to that which is around it. If God is goodness itself, infinite goodness, how would he outpour Himself, His goodness to all of creation? Man, being a microcosm of the universe would be a suitable piece of creation to unite to.
>His video on this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zp7gAm6TxFw&t=226s

[Anonymous No.12492940]

Ed Feser is one of the best Thomistic philosophers around.

[Anonymous No.12492969]

>>12492675
>Anyone read this?
I have

>How is it?
Pretty good for someone beginning to learn the Aristotelian-Thomistic tradition

>Legit?
yeah it is; pretty good arsenal for new atheists too, yet a good intro to the scholastic concept of God

[Anonymous No.12493018]

>>12492675
>five "proofs" of god
>yet all of the most intelligent people in the arts and sciences still don't believe in god
thinkingemoji.png

[Anonymous No.12493031]

>>12493018
Appeal to authority. Not an argument. Clean your room bucko.

[Anonymous No.12493460]

Arif Ahmed didn't seem to have any answers

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A48zsMFodG4

[Anonymous No.12493486]

>>12492940
Cool, is that like being one of the best phrenologists still around?

[Anonymous No.12493496]

>>12492784
>The Incarnation is unique to all other religions
No it isn't, what the fuck are you talking about. God descends to Earth as a human multiple times in Hinduism.

[Anonymous No.12493517]

>>12493486
That's correct. He, like the 'best phrenologist,' are experts at what they specialize in.

[Anonymous No.12493602]

>>12493517
That anon's point is that theology is a bullshit discipline like phrenology (not saying I agree with him)

[Anonymous No.12493631]

>>12492675
george michael says, ya gotta have faith. a friend gave me this book, i havent read it..faith alone wont sustain us anymore.

[Anonymous No.12493642]

>>12492675
Plotinus was one ugly motherfucker

[Anonymous No.12493658]

>>12492704
isnt this book just another way of Feser to attack new atheists? i mean he's shilling plotinus, obviously he's not a neo-platonist

[Anonymous No.12493731]

>>12493658
I mean, Aristotle used the stuff that was true from Plato, but does that make him a Platonist?

[Anonymous No.12493743]

>>12493602
Go fuck your mother.

[Anonymous No.12494121]

>>12492675
>Edward Feser
>Josh McDowell
>Lee Strobel
>Norman L. Geisler
>Frank Turek
>J. Warner Wallace

How can atheists even compete?

[Anonymous No.12494166]

>>12494121
weak b8

[Anonymous No.12494218]

>>12492675
>god exists because muh unmoved mover!
>*pic related appears*
>nonono! not THAT kind of unmoved mover!! REEEEEEEEE matter requires the metaphysical!
>"why?"
>REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
It's amazing the breadth of scientific literature you'd have to be ignorant of to be a theist in the 21st century.

[Anonymous No.12494231]

>>12493631
If faith won't sustain you then your real issue is a lack of conviction.

[Anonymous No.12494247]

>>12493743
momsdoporn dot POP!!

[Anonymous No.12494285]

>>12494218

what caused the big bang to happen? Where did the matter come from?

[Anonymous No.12494292]

>>12493018
>>yet all of the most intelligent people in the arts and sciences still don't believe in god
This just is not true at all

[Anonymous No.12494393]

>>12494292
oh but it is

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oEULhtSEDhe No.12494429]

>>12492675
Going by the last thread that brought this up, it isn’t legit at all. People make up excuses to keep their faith. That’s the extent of it, always.

>>12494292
>>12494393
More name dropping or let the thread die. There’s nothing else to do

[Anonymous No.12494442]

>>12494429
Faggot

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oEULhtSEDhe No.12494475]

>>12494442
Christian charity, everybody.
He does his sadist in the sky proud

[Anonymous No.12494485]

>>12493602
Feser's book is philosophy, not theology.

[Anonymous No.12494487]

>>12494475
Faggot

[Anonymous No.12494493]

>>12494429
Absolutely the stupidest post ever.

There is a reason there are METAPHYSICAL arguments for God, and not physical ones.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oEULhtSEDhe No.12494512]

>>12494493
And because there are only metaphysical excuses for god, we can safely relegate the concept to a simple fiction

[Anonymous No.12494517]

>>12494429
>People make up excuses to keep their faith.
Including faith in Scientism./ There are definite limits to what humans can know. God's existence is one of these limits. We have been arguing about it since the dawn of time, and we'll be arguing about iot until doomsday.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oEULhtSEDhe No.12494535]

>>12494517
Go design a computer that can know god than

Doomsday is your death

[Anonymous No.12494546]

>>12494535
>Go design a computer that can know god than
This is nonsensical. Science as a methodology excludes all evidence of the divine.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oEULhtSEDhe No.12494575]

>>12494546
The “divine” is a fiction.
Things unknown to humans at this point are not unknownable, they’re undiscovered.
You cannot put your favorite imaginary friend in a jar up high in the top shelf of a locked cabinet that is made up in the mind and proclaim it a profound truth.
You must acknowledge that it’s all hypothetical at most.

[Anonymous No.12494625]

>>12494575
>You must acknowledge that it’s all hypothetical at most.
I do. You seem to think that your belief isn't a hypothesis.

[Anonymous No.12494700]

>>12492675
OP here. Any prerequisite reading or can I dive right in? The only Aristotle I've read is Nicomachean Ethics. I have only read Montaigne, Seneca, Aurelius, a little Schopenhauer, a little Kierkegaard, and some Plato dialogues for philosophy

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oEULhtSEDhe No.12494721]

>>12494625
>antitheism is a faith
It isn’t.
This excuse for staying 50/50 faux-agnostic is disingenuous.

[Anonymous No.12494759]

>>12494700
Jump in. You should have read Aristotle's Organon before starting any philosophy, but I'm sure Feser walks you through the proofs. They aren't difficult.

[Anonymous No.12494767]

>>12494700
None of Feser's books expect you to know a lot going into them. He's a good writer.

[Anonymous No.12494788]

>>12492675
>God must exist because why wouldn't he?!

[Anonymous No.12494848]

>>12494575
>Things unknown to humans at this point are not unknownable, they’re undiscovered.
This is FAITH in human omniscience. FAITH.

[Anonymous No.12494854]

God will reveal himself to whom he wants.

[Anonymous No.12494855]

>>12494721
>>antitheism is a faith
>It isn’t.
>Continue arguing until Doomsday

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oEULhtSEDhe No.12494879]

>>12494848
I open my eyes and see.
I learn a code of communication in order o learn even more
I read the history of knowledge and it’s unfolding through time.
I see no reason why the unknown will remain so, barring an early extinction event that the faithful have been trying to bring on us all

You call it faith, but I have faith in what Is, not what has been imagined by ancients

[Anonymous No.12494892]

>>12494879
you have faith in anarchism tho so you haven't given up uncritically believing things that sound good

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oEULhtSEDhe No.12494894]

>>12494887
Anarchism is perfectly possible

[Anonymous No.12494895]

>>12493642
I always found him rather dignified looking.

[Anonymous No.12494898]

>>12494879
>I see no reason why the unknown will remain so
Why hasn't science solved the problems that science has caused - like thermonuclear weapons?

[Anonymous No.12494905]

>>12494894
so is god

[Anonymous No.12494912]

>>12492675
Never trust someone who offers multiple proofs when one valid argument would do the trick.

[Anonymous No.12494914]

>>12494285
Both questions assume that there's a "before" to the big bang, when that's a fundamentally faulty notion as time, space and motion are all fundamentally interconnected and not one of them can exist without the others. It's on par with asking where God came from.

[Anonymous No.12494925]

>>12494879
>You call it faith, but I have faith in what Is, not what has been imagined by ancients
Have you been directing your own scientific experiments, seeing for yourself "what is"? Or do read about science? - Maybe you have more faith in the credibility of scientific traditions than those of religious traditions?

[Anonymous No.12494947]

Fucking Reddit needs to stop replying to the namefag

[Anonymous No.12494973]

>>12494925
The comparison is a faulty one. One can have a degree of "faith" in science by pointing to the success of the method's results. This isn't to say that one should blindly accept everything that is claimed in science (scientists don't), but one can reasonable assume a well-established theory is true owing to its utility, explanatory capacity, and predictive capability. Further, a scientific theory doesn't warrant as much scrutiny because the claims made have ultimately little bearing on your life. Nobody is saying you have to abstain from shrimp or go to the local university every week because of evolution.

Believe in a religious creed if you want, I heartily encourage it, but don't pretend as though having a degree of epistemological trust in science rooted in its demonstrable results is the same as the blind leap that religious faith is.

[Anonymous No.12494979]

>>12494925
don't forget that she believes its possible for all humans to give up their self-interest and live together in one big world wide hippy commune with no state power which sounds exactly like some christian bullshit out of augustine, so often christians who rebel against their parents by becoming edgy athiests don't really stop believing christian things, christianity is about believing that civilization is all fucked up cuz we humans did stuff that wasn't in our self-interest (eat the tree of knowledge, vote for trump, etc) and that the poor and weak are always right (supporting illegals, refrigerator repair vets with drums, etc) it's all christianity

[Anonymous No.12494997]

>>12494979
Dude, come on now. Epicureanism is older than Christianity.

[Anonymous No.12495011]

>>12494997
epicureanism isn't anarchism, anarchists have all kinds of heavy handed moralism just like christians

[Anonymous No.12495023]

>>12493486
>mocking phrenology while posting a smallbrain wojak

[Anonymous No.12495025]

>>12495011
I'd say a reasonable conclusion of Epicureanism as a global system would be some form of agrarian anarchism. Further Epicureanism had plenty of its own heavy-handed moralism as well, having already distanced itself from the early ethics of the presocratics and sophists, being well down the path that would ultimately lead to Christian ethics that was started by Plato.

[Anonymous No.12495033]

>>12494218
pinhead

[Anonymous No.12495039]

>>12495023
lel

[Anonymous No.12495041]

>>12494218

[Anonymous No.12495050]

>>12494973
>epistemological trust in science rooted in its demonstrable results
- like thermonuclear weapons?
Is this the same namefag?

[Anonymous No.12495064]

>>12495050
No. I'm not an Epicurean. Also yes, those would be an example. Along with insulin, vaccines, modern cataract surgery, and so on. I'm not actually criticizing faith in God (I believe in God), I'm saying that trusting the scientific method and its results to a degree is not the same thing as faith in God.

[Anonymous No.12495076]

>>12492675
>Legit
Yep legit as fuck. Atheist pseuds will still try to find a way to discredit it without actually attacking the arguments but just making shit up to feel smart.

[Anonymous No.12495091]

>>12495076
>making shit up to feel smart

That's all philosophy is.

[Anonymous No.12495121]

>>12495064
>Along with insulin, vaccines, modern cataract surgery, and so on.
All completely unnecessary to the average person. But science invented a way to kill everybody - thermonuclear weapons! Such progress!

[Anonymous No.12495138]

>>12495064
>Along with insulin, vaccines, modern cataract surgery, and so on
Also creating an over-population bomb that is set to go off.

[Anonymous No.12495146]

>>12495076
Feser never satisfactorily answers the Kantian objections. I doubt he has even read Kant.

[Anonymous No.12495147]

>>12495138
the more countries get the developed the more the birth rate declines

[Anonymous No.12495156]

>>12495121
I didn't say anything about progress.

Vaccines are definitely beneficial to the average person. Are they necessary? Not strictly speaking, but they do considerably increase the likelihood of someone making it to old age. The fact that women aren't particularly likely to die in childbirth is something else that science has given us.

Even thermonuclear weapons one could argue have made the formerly devastating conventional wars of before no longer viable.

I don't buy into the narrative of progress, but I'm not going to act like my life hasn't considerably benefited from science in a way it hasn't benefited from belief in God.

[Anonymous No.12495170]

>>12495138
Do you have any evidence of that?

[Anonymous No.12495192]

>>12495170
>>12495147
google "population bomb"

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oEULhtSEDhe No.12495202]

>>12494892
It’s a real world solution. I don’t believe it will happen the same way a Christian believes in the second coming and the kingdom of god
>>12494905
Then so is Harry Potter.

>>12494979
Living in a more orderly and peaceable way is in everyone’s best interest.

[Anonymous No.12495226]

>>12495192
oh right the second go around of malthus this time of course as farce, yeah, great, except its wrong

[Anonymous No.12495229]

>>12492784
every time I post something in depth and coherent, it gets lost in the wind like a fart


im bumping my post losers

[Anonymous No.12495238]

>>12495202
>Living in a more orderly and peaceable way is in everyone’s best interest.

and you think having no state will result in more order and peace? have any evidence to support that? or you just have faith that kropotkin or whoever's prophecies are true?

[Anonymous No.12495239]

>>12495192
No. Malthusian nonsense is nothing new. Provide some evidence of your proposition, because otherwise I'm going to go with the current scientific consensus that overpopulation is bunk and that human populations will level out.

[Anonymous No.12495247]

>>12495229
no one wanna read that long ass shit, take to "medium" or wherever

[Anonymous No.12495249]

>>12495229
Well for one thing, your post relies on people link-hopping and reading Aquinas, as though our casual interest in a 4chan thread warrants that. I suggest in the future making the point yourself.

[Anonymous No.12495264]

>>12495239
>scientific consensus
Circular reasoning? No thanks. You've stopped making sense and are now drifting into insanity.

[Anonymous No.12495282]

>>12495264
>make claim
>be asked to provide evidence for claim
>expect person you're trying to sway to a position to do so for you
>person refuses and instead goes with well-established science
>ur crazy lol

Good job, you look like an idiot.

[Anonymous No.12495341]

>>12495202
>Living in a more orderly and peaceable way is in everyone’s best interest.
Yeah, especially if you've been brought up in a comfortable environment

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oEULhtSEDhe No.12495391]

>>12495238
It would have to be if it is ever to happen in the first place.
Anarchist political philosophers don’t prophesize. Look into and consider it sometime.

[Anonymous No.12495495]

>>12492940
Nah

[Anonymous No.12495683]

>>12492675
>God is goodness itself, infinite goodness, how would he outpour Himself
OK, now you've pissed Her off. Prepare for dismemberment.

[Anonymous No.12495695]

>>12495239
>No. Malthusian nonsense is nothing new.
You realize that Malthus was the inspiration behind your Great Bug Catcher's Theory of Evolution?

[Anonymous No.12495916]

>>12492675
Great book. Even people who aren't too fond of Feser in the academic world praised it.
Don't listen to the YouTube university graduates in this thread. Brainlets and philistines all.
Feser does an excellent job of presenting the fascinating theistic systems of five very diverse and equally impressive minds. While Feser does assume and make it a point of proving that these proofs inevitably lead to the God of Christianity, what else would you expect from a Thomist? But that is only his reading of it and he makes a very clear demarcation between his own thoughts and those of the men he is presenting.
A great book. Laymen, uni students, and professors alike can all gain something from it.

[Anonymous No.12495922]

>>12495695
That doesn't make his theories about human overpopulation correct or scientifically credible.

[Anonymous No.12496051]

>>12495391
consider what? the possibility of utopia breaking out on earth? yeah ok

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE No.12496066]

>>12496051
>I'm too scared to check it out.

[Anonymous No.12496125]

>>12496066
>thinks everyone hasn't already read all the leftist shit a long time ago

grow up

[Anonymous No.12496176]

>>12492784
The assumption that the true religion must be the one that's the most doctrines unique is just that a assumption. We have no reason to assume this

[Anonymous No.12496263]

>>12495922
>That doesn't make his theories about human overpopulation correct or scientifically credible.
You're doubting your own Holy Book? So people are supposed to believe in your religion because you believe in - PARTS of it?

[Anonymous No.12496822]

>>12496263
What fucking holybook? Science isn't a religion, it's a collection of epistemological and methodological frameworks meant to attain an explanatory or predictive understanding of the natural world. Nobody views the whole of science as a dogmatic system to be followed in its entirety, I know I sure fucking don't, I just believe it's meritorious and that having a degree of trust in well-established theory is not the same as faith in God.

[Anonymous No.12496833]

>>12496822
>theory
A theory is still a theory which requires faith i.e. Dogma. God is a theory, too.

[Anonymous No.12496849]

>>12496833
>A theory is still a theory which requires faith i.e. Dogma. God is a theory, too.
I take that back. God is a theory. "Survival of the fittest" isn't - it is just a repetitive statement: "Survival of the fittest because the fit survive" - it doesn't really theorize anything.

[Anonymous No.12497562]

>>12493731
Yes. Aristotle and Plato agreed on almost everything. Stop believing the meme.

[Anonymous No.12498305]

>>12494912
Because fuck right triangles, pythagoras was wrong

[Anonymous No.12498688]

>>12494914
but if all the stars are moving away from each other over time, if you were to reverse the movement or time, what is the farthest point it all can go? If there is no point in time before the big bang, what created the laws in the universe for the big bang to even happen, how did matter get to a singular point to cause this massive expansion? God can never have been created because he is a divine being, you can't say the same thing about the big bang.

[Anonymous No.12498788]

>>12496833
How about you fuck right off and go learn basic terminology? A theory is a hypothesis that has been well-supported with available evidence. Survival of the fittest isn't a scientific concept, and is considered a drastic oversimplification of the processes of evolution, which include not just competition but intraspecies cooperation as major forces.

>>12498688
Again, every single question there hinges on there being a "before" the big bang, which is much like asking what's south of the south pole.

>you can't say the same thing about the big bang.

I would disagree, since I believe that the universe and everything within it is something that is definitely divine, but that's neither here nor there. God is no better a solution, since it raises further questions, than just assuming (based on the fact time, space, and motion are all fundamentally connected) that there is no before the big bang.

[Anonymous No.12498823]

>>12498788
okay so if you kept going south of the south pole you would end up going away from it and end up going north. I am not asking what happened before the big bang, I am asking if you were to trace back the expansion of the stars, how far could that go? Also who said asking if there is a before the big bang is like asking what is south of the south pole, where is the proof that these questions are equivocal?

[Anonymous No.12498828]

>>12498788
There has to be a "before the big bang" because there is a big bang.

[Anonymous No.12498829]

>>12498788
god would raise no more questions as he is a necessity due to being super natural, he would always be the last question.

[Anonymous No.12498921]

>>12495146
Are you sure Kant's criticisms apply to even Aquinas? The Aristotelian argument that Feser uses doesn't rely on causal connection going back in time and outside of the universe.

[Anonymous No.12498937]

>>12495146
I don't blame him. Kant is not readable.

[Anonymous No.12498942]

>>12498823
>I am asking if you were to trace back the expansion of the stars, how far could that go?

As far as I know current models go to shortly after the big bang.

>Also who said asking if there is a before the big bang is like asking what is south of the south pole, where is the proof that these questions are equivocal?

Our current scientific understanding of time links it with space (distortions to space involve distortions to time). So since space didn't exist before the big bang, neither did time, making the question of what was before the big bang much like asking what's south of the south pole; there is no south of the south pole.

>>12498828
Time came into being with it.

>>12498829
Why does God exist? Why would a supposedly perfect god have an unfulfilled motive that would necessitate the creation of a universe to fulfill? Why would a supposedly perfect God create something that wasn't perfect like itself?

[Anonymous No.12498949]

>>12498942
Was time created before or after the bang?

[Anonymous No.12498988]

>>12494898
>Why hasn't science solved the problems that science has caused - like thermonuclear weapons?
>world peace is now a problem
fucking imagine cold war WITHOUT them

[Anonymous No.12498997]

>>12498988
i read a book that proved massive wars reduce inequality so really advocating for thermonuclear war should be part of the progressive agenda, sure everyone will be living in mud huts eating radioactive squirrels but at least there wont be any rich guys

[Anonymous No.12499002]

>>12498988
World war 3 wouldn't have happened even if nuclear weapons weren't deployed. Due to globalization and the costs of world war 2, neither the USSR or USA would have any incentive to start a war.

[Anonymous No.12499610]

>>12498949
It came into being with space and motion.

[Anonymous No.12499745]

>>12494517
Reminder that if something is immeasurable, by definition it can't affect anything.

[Anonymous No.12499763]

>>12492675
Only brainlets need proofs for God

[Anonymous No.12499815]

>>12494914
the only thing in the universe that has no cause is god, if you honestly think big bang happened from actual nothing you actually believe in what people call god lmao

[Anonymous No.12499820]

>>12492675
They are important parts in the history of philosophy. Good things were deduced from their failures.

[Anonymous No.12499832]

>>12493031
well said bro-beans

[Anonymous No.12500521]

>>12499815
>the only thing in our universe that has no cause is God

On what basis do you believe that? Why are other uncaused events inconceivable?

f you honestly think big bang happened from actual nothing you actually believe in what people call god lmao

> if you honestly think big bang happened from actual nothing you actually believe in what people call god lmao

Sort of. I believe in a God that was heavily influenced by Xenophanes, Parmenides and Spinoza. There are very distinct differences between this God, and what most people arguing for the existence of God are arguing for.

[Anonymous No.12500732]

>>12496176
never said anything having the most unique doctrines.

The logic remains:

If this religion has this unique doctrine, and all others don't, then if I prove that unique doctrine to be true, the religion would be the true one out of all the others.

>Here's an example:

>Tim has a hand of four cards pulled from one deck, but you do not know any of them.

>There are also a handful of other people, including you, who also have four cards each,
>pulled from separate decks, separate from Tim's as well.

>You know is that everyone's hand has the same first two cards as everyone else,
>a third card that could be the same as other people's 3rd card,
>and a fourth card that is distinct from everyone else's hand.

>Here's the interesting part: one of those people has the exact same hand as Tim.

>So, your hand, as a whole, is unique to everyone else's, because of that single unique fourth card.
>To prove that your hand is identical to Tim's all you would have to do is
>prove that your fourth card is the same fourth card in Tim's hand.

>So, your hand would have to be Tim's hand; there could be no other way.

[Anonymous No.12500832]

>>12500732
That's an awfuly overly complex example to explain something so simple.

[Anonymous No.12500931]

>>12500832
Well apparently the anon couldn't comprehend the argument, so I had to lay it all out for him. And I didn't want him to sperg about different aspects of the example that did not pertain to the concept of uniqueness in logic.

[Anonymous No.12501237]

Can we have ONE thread about religion without the butterfly faggot shitting it up? He never even posts anything of value or intelligence. Its just:
>God isn't real because religion is stupid lol!
>God isn't real because people who believe in God are mean to me!
He hasn't made ONE legitimate argument, its basically r/atheism and youtube comment level arguments. We get it, fag, you hate religion.

[Anonymous No.12501551]

>>12492704
>using mythopoetic unironically

>>12497562
And St Thomas agrees with Neoplatonism on most things (Pseudo Dionysius)

[Anonymous No.12501558]

>>12494575
read Spengler tripfriend