[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]

2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

File: 141 KB, 800x675, aquinas.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

14054330

Anonymous Fri Oct 25 11:25:16 2019 No.14054330 [Reply] [Original]

The five 'proofs' asserted by Thomas Aquinas in the thirteenth
century don't prove anything, and are easily - though I hesitate to
say so, given his eminence - exposed as vacuous.
All three arguments rely upon the idea of a regress and
invoke God to terminate it. They make the entirely unwarranted
assumption that God himself is immune to the regress. Even if we
allow the dubious luxury of arbitrarily conjuring up a terminator to
an infinite regress and giving it a name, simply because we need
one, there is absolutely no reason to endow that terminator with
any of the properties normally ascribed to God: omnipotence,
omniscience, goodness, creativity of design, to say nothing of such
human attributes as listening to prayers, forgiving sins and reading
innermost thoughts. Incidentally, it has not escaped the notice of logicians that omniscience and omnipotence are mutually incompatible. If
God is omniscient, he must already know how he is going to intervene
to change the course of history using his omnipotence. But that means
he can't change his mind about his intervention, which means he is not
omnipotent.

>>

Anonymous Fri Oct 25 11:28:17 2019 No.14054347

Daily reminder these threads are a psyop intended to keep us spinnning our wheels in the same nu atheist rut 2006 debating the same talking points over and over and over because they fear this place's potential

Aquinas never intended the proofs to be a slam dunk. Educate yourself.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 25 11:31:01 2019 No.14054360 >>14054347 debunk what i posted then

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 25 11:37:01 2019 No.14054392 >>14054360 I didn't even read it because you write like a fucking retard.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 25 11:39:12 2019 No.14054401 >>14054330 well yeah

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 25 11:46:40 2019 No.14054439 >>14054330 Nobody actually takes the five proofs as proofs. There are more interesting arguments on the subject.

>>

Anonymous Fri Oct 25 11:51:29 2019 No.14054463

God is immune to the regress, because in order for the regress to have arisen in the first place, there must have been an initial cause which set said regress in place. This is neccessary because something cannot come from nothing, and therefore the regress cannot be infinite because if it was, it would have to have arisen from nothingness. In order for something to be the first cause, for it to not be prone to same regress as all other things are, it must be perfect in every way, and this thing we all understand to be God.
This is explained in the Prima Via, Aquinas responded to your argument in the Summa, which you would know if you had read it well, and understood it well.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 25 11:53:39 2019 No.14054475 >>14054463 it's a dawkins quote

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 25 11:58:08 2019 No.14054499 >>14054347 the idea that this place has any value whatsoever other than maybe providing some socialization to overly sensitive 20something male losers is hilarious

>>

Anonymous Fri Oct 25 11:59:21 2019 No.14054509

>>14054330
>that means he can't change his mind about his intervention, which means he is not omnipotent
"changing your mind about something" is deciding not to do something, an omnipotent being, by definition, DOES all that is conceivable and more. If It did not do something, it wouldn't be omnipotent.
Furthermore, to decide pertains to those that can do only one thing at once. This is a non argument, since it views omnipotence from the perspective of limited potency

>>

Anonymous Fri Oct 25 12:00:02 2019 No.14054510

>>14054330
>The five 'proofs'
>All three arguments
Learn to count.

> If God is omniscient, he must already know how he is going to intervene to change the course of history using his omnipotence
You haven't though about God enough. You're thinking of God existing as a man exists -- in time, in a tense, capable of error. Simple fact is God does not lack in any way.

If you're going to try to bullshit your way towards convincing /lit/ you're refuting Aquinas, you probably want to actually read him first.

>>

Anonymous Fri Oct 25 12:25:06 2019 No.14054635
File: 50 KB, 550x543, 4EA9644D-0549-40CA-AA4F-C35C2DAFF88C.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>14054347
>psyop
>thinking literal government/corporate agents are paid to be deployed to one of the slowest boards on 4chan and spout typical atheist talking points.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 25 12:33:33 2019 No.14054685 >>14054330 He proved there is a God or gods. Doesn't mean that it's the Christian god though.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 25 12:36:39 2019 No.14054705 >>14054475 This explains quite a lot.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 25 12:46:45 2019 No.14054761 >>14054510 The God that is incomprehensible to man is unknowavle to man, and no one can have any opinion or knowledge of such a God, and thus no belief either.