/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.14274917]

Literally the entirety of the Summa collapses with one question. "Then who created God?" Guarantee no one is going to earnestly answer that question and all the replies are gonna be Christcucks seething.

[Anonymous No.14274921]

>>14274917
god is a boltzmann brain

[Anonymous No.14274922]

>>14274917
Me. I created him.

[Anonymous No.14274930]

>>14274917
That's the definition of the word "God" though. God is the category of things that are uncreated, omnipotent, omnipresent etc. To ask that question is to perform a category error.

[Anonymous No.14274933]

>>14274930
Prove your axioms.

[Anonymous No.14274942]

>>14274917
ITS ALL META ITS ALL META CONSCIOUSNESS META META META THATS WHY WE PROJECT

[Anonymous No.14274947]

>>14274917
>"Then who created God?"
The common definition of God makes this question semantically ill-defined.
>God is the category of things that are uncreated, omnipotent, omnipresent etc.
Let's use the most common God paradoxon to discuss this quote: If God is omnipotent, he can create a stone so heavy that even he can't carry it. But then he isn't omnipotent.
Therefore, the above statement is contradictory and rejected.
>To ask that question is to perform a category error.
There is no god category independent from the universe category. To presume so would first claim that God is independent of the Universe and thus independent of space and time, making him non-existent.

[Anonymous No.14274948]

>>14274917
Wow, you're such a retard.

[Anonymous No.14274958]

>>14274948
not an argument babe

[Anonymous No.14274971]

>>14274917
Yaldabaoth was born when the Aeon Sophia tried to create something outside of the totality of the Pleroma, then the Child of Chaos along with all matter came into being separately from Platos world of Archetypes.

>inb4 who created the world of Archetypes
its like asking "who created wisdom?"

[Anonymous No.14274978]

>>14274921
Bro you just posed BASED, did you mean to do that?

[Anonymous No.14274990]

>>14274947
Actually that paradox of omnipotence is contingent on a misunderstanding of omniscience and omnipresence. God does not have free will since god is omniscient and free will can only exist in the absence of being all knowing and all good, thus gods omnipotence is in reference to what god DOES do and not what god CAN do because what god CAN do is incomprehensible statement, god does not decide to do things nor does god have any unused potential. God is omnipotent in the sense that all things that ARE, are because they are gods will, which is not free, and thus presenting a hypothetical to invalidate omnipotence is incoherent because omnipotence deals with what is and what will be.

[Anonymous No.14275004]

It falls apart when you question the validity of the sources he takes as fact. Some religious dude said something isn't an objective axiom to work off of. Aquinas just pulls everything out of his ass and goes a ton of mental gymnastics around it. You can prove anything if you are the one who gets to choose what base statements you get to work off of

[Anonymous No.14275026]

>>14274917
The essence of the argument you are referring to is: if every thing is contingent on a previous cause, and only comes into actuality if its cause is actual, a primary, uncaused cause is necessary, if anything is to be at all (as no part of the causal chain would come into being without the previous, which would not come into being without the previous and so on; and, if there was nothing that escaped the necessity of being caused, there would be nothing at all.).
So, your question could be translated to "what is the cause of the uncaused cause". Its answer: it is uncaused. Per the argument, such a thing that escapes the necessity of being caused is a necessary conclusion of anything existing. So why ask what causes it?

[Anonymous No.14275170]

>>14274921
based

[Anonymous No.14275177]

>the titans created god

[Anonymous No.14275220]

>>14274930
>is to perform a category error
And? If you are to truly understand then you have to realize that the creator of God isn't bound to such trivialities. It's a conformal, non-commutative ontology. The very nature of this metagod is to transcend the concept of rules... possibly even concepts themselves.

>>14274947
>the above question is contradictory and rejected
Only in classical logic, and it's one of the principle reasons why non-classical logics have been developed.

[Anonymous No.14275233]

>>14275026
This does not necessarily means that the uncaused cause is God, it could be anything really.

[Anonymous No.14275235]

>>14275177
what did he mean by this?

[Anonymous No.14275241]

>>14274971
Who indeed.

[Anonymous No.14275243]

>>14274971
>Yaldabaoth was born when the Aeon Sophia tried to create something outside of the totality of the Pleroma
/thread

[Anonymous No.14275251]

>>14275026
That only applies to finite causal chains. If the chain is infinite, then a prime mover is unnecessary. Another issue is that there is very little connecting said prime mover to the Aquinas God(something that Aquinas himself admitted so) or His traditional characteristics.

[Anonymous No.14275269]

>>14275026
Because in strange primordial spaces and certain metaphysical manifolds "uncaused" doesn't predate cause, and in more traditional ontologies in order to preserve meaning the inverse has to be taken as true (caused by all things)

Additionally, the unmoved mover's necessity is based on an axiom of linear, finite regress. By it's very nature, one has to discount infinite regression without evidence, and herein lies the problem. The unmoved mover is only argued out of a manufactured necessity, and the axioms are drawn from the conclusion.

[Anonymous No.14275297]

>>14275233
>...and this is what we all understand God to be.
>...and this men call God.
>...and this "something" we call God.
etc.
That is, Thomas considers that the being being necessary is sufficient to understand it as God. Where you are correct is that this has no relevance to any other qualities of the christian God, or the validity of the Bible. Whether the evidence is correct is unimportant, however. I have only posted it to show that OP's question misses the point completely.
>>14275251
>That only applies to finite causal chains. If the chain is infinite, then a prime mover is unnecessary
The argument proves the impossibility of causal chains without a primary cause. Whether the number of other "links" between it and any other "link" is numberless is insubstantial. Because the base of the proof is that nothing potential can be actualized by that which is already not actual, if there was no necessarily actual primary cause, no other cause could ever come into being. What you would call an "infinite causal chain" is an infinite chain of potentials, with no actual as every potential is contingent on a previous potential, and you never arrive at an actual.
The proof has other problems. I make no judgement on it, and have only postefžd it to show OP's "critique" to be misguided. But to attack it with the "infinite causal chain" would be inappropriate.

[Anonymous No.14275301]

>>14274917
Maybe you should actually read it.

[Anonymous No.14275302]

>>14275269
Please, rephrase the post.

[Anonymous No.14275309]

>summa is of no value if no god
Retard. Enjoy being a slave to your passions, and leading a useless life. The Summa is essentially programming on human perfection. The discussions about God's existence are trivial in comparison.

[Anonymous No.14275489]

>>14275309
>durr im gonna waste my life by acting like there's a god even if there is no go
NPC response. Enjoy being a slave to a morality you don't even believe in loser

[Anonymous No.14275495]

>>14274922
This guy.

[Anonymous No.14275510]

>there are people still replying to this dumb thread

[Anonymous No.14275514]

>>14275510
"Not an argument"

[Anonymous No.14275519]

>>14274947
>he can create a stone so heavy that even he can't carry it
>lets demand a perfect being to perform anninternaply contradictory action
>nothing happens
>somehow this disproves omnipotence
Retard lol

[Anonymous No.14275528]

Do you guys really not realize that OP has read not even one page of the Summa Theologiae, and that this thread is mere atheistic complaint to trigger those who believe in God?

I guess you're all newfags

[Anonymous No.14275532]

>>14274933
You don't prove axioms, you admit them as basis for your reasoning.

[Anonymous No.14275536]

>>14275489
>slave to a morality
>implying it's possible not to be a slave

[Anonymous No.14275544]

>>14275536
Well yes of course, why?

[Anonymous No.14275558]

REPENT SINNER!

[Anonymous No.14275568]

In natural theology, one argues fr a feature of the world to a certain entity. From that entity one argues to god. The argument from motion begins with change and argues for an unactualized actualizer. Then from an actualized actualizer ome jumps to a purely actual actualizer and from that to god.

1: From motion to unactualized actualizer.
An event happening is the realisation of a possibility. For something to go from possibility into reality, there needs to be a set of facts that are true about reality. Then how did these facts become real? The same thing. So like a building, there needs to be some fundamental part that doesn't need any facts to be true.
2: From unactualized actualizer to pure actuality.
This fundamental fact either has some possibility or has full reality. Then what makes the possibility real in said thing? If it's the fundamental fact, then the possibilities aren't part of it, merely a consequence of its being, and so the thing itself is pure reality and has no possibility.
3: Pure actuality.
To be pure reality means to have every property. For there two be two things, they need to differ in some property, but becuase it necessesarily has all properties, it follow that there can only be one. Becuase spacial positioning is a property, it's omnipresent. Becuase ability is a property, it's omnipotent and therefor an agent.

[Anonymous No.14275580]

>>14274990
>free will can only exist in an absence of all knowing and all good
Or not. Prove it.

[Anonymous No.14275591]

E T E R N A L

[Anonymous No.14275592]

>>14275568
>there needs to be a set of facts that are true about reality
No.

[Anonymous No.14275607]

>>14275489
It's not about being moral to other people, imbecile. It's about having parameters in check that prevent maladaptive feedback loops in the areas of things capable of diverting reason such as lust and anger.

[a_poor_sinner !!eiHxl4pZe1i No.14275611]

>>14274917
God is uncreated.

[Anonymous No.14275620]

Can someone explain why God would create the entire universe if humans aren't even going to interact with it? Literally just looking at the universe and noticing how much shit there is dispproves a god imo. There would be literally no reason for him to make all this shit if he gave a shit about humans. Stop being so vain. You're dust on one rock in the entire universe. God definitely doesn't care.

[Anonymous No.14275623]

>>14275558
>god is like wi-fi
the absolute fucking state of relicucks. Just give up at this point.

[Anonymous No.14275629]

>>14275591
>>14275611
How?

[Anonymous No.14275706]

>>14275629
Pure actuality, go read you fucking mouthbreather.

[Anonymous No.14275712]

>>14275620
Read Job

[Anonymous No.14275725]

>>14275712
I have. Has nothing to do with what I said.

[Anonymous No.14275735]

>>14275623
I warned you

[Anonymous No.14275738]

>>14275568
>f it's the fundamental fact, then the possibilities aren't part of it
Why? Why can’t possibilities be a part of it? Don’t concepts such as miracles, as well as Jesus straight up contradict it?

[Anonymous No.14275743]

>>14275623
>reptilian illuminati want to install 5G everywhere so they can finally achieve full global god coverage

[Anonymous No.14275747]

>>14275580
>Prove it.
The only proof you need is to read it again and understand it. But that requires a working brain, something you lack. So there is nothing that can be done at this point. Sorry, anon.

[Anonymous No.14275755]

>>14274933
It's true by category.

[a_poor_sinner !!eiHxl4pZe1i No.14275762]

>>14275629
When would something that is eternal have been created?

[Anonymous No.14275767]

>>14275620
>wtf I'm so small!!! fuck you god!!!!
Manlets, when will they learn...

[Anonymous No.14275770]

>>14275725
>Then the Lord answered Job out of the whirlwind:
>“Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge?
>Gird up your loins like a man, I will question you, and you shall declare to me.
>“Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell me, if you have understanding.
>Who determined its measurements—surely you know! Or who stretched the line upon it?
>On what were its bases sunk, or who laid its cornerstone,
>when the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
>“Or who shut in the sea with doors, when it burst forth from the womb;
>when I made clouds its garment, and thick darkness its swaddling band,
>and prescribed bounds for it, and set bars and doors,
>and said, ‘Thus far shall you come, and no farther, and here shall your proud waves be stayed’?
>“Have you commanded the morning since your days began, and caused the dawn to know its place,
>that it might take hold of the skirts of the earth, and the wicked be shaken out of it?
>It is changed like clay under the seal, and it is dyed like a garment.
>From the wicked their light is withheld, and their uplifted arm is broken.
>“Have you entered into the springs of the sea, or walked in the recesses of the deep?
>Have the gates of death been revealed to you, or have you seen the gates of deep darkness?
>Have you comprehended the expanse of the earth? Declare, if you know all this.
Job 38:1-18
Has a lot to do with what you said, God himself points out that humans are cosmically insignificant and don't really know anything about the creation and expanse of existence

[Anonymous No.14275784]

>>14275770
>God himself points out that humans are cosmically insignificant
Ah. Not so infinitely loving after all, eh?

[Anonymous No.14275789]

>>14275770
That doesn’t answer that anon question. The anon asked why God did it, if it was meant for humans.

[Anonymous No.14275824]

>>14275784
>Ah. Not so infinitely loving after all, eh?
Never claimed he was, goy.
Regardless, humans not being cosmic masters doesn't necessitate God not loving them.
>>14275789
>Can someone explain why God would create the entire universe if humans aren't even going to interact with it?
Because God wanted to
>There would be literally no reason for him to make all this shit if he gave a shit about humans.
Not necessarily true, humans don't have to be the center of the universe to be cared about.

[Anonymous No.14275836]

>>14275824
>humans don't have to be the center of the universe to be cared about.
God making mankind into His likeness is straight up spelled out in Genesis, likewise the Bible says in multiple points that humans are second only to God in relevance.

[Anonymous No.14275843]

>>14274922
Did you just abandon the project halfway because that would make much sense

[Anonymous No.14275852]

>>14275836
>God making mankind into His likeness is straight up spelled out in Genesis
doesn't mean that humans are God
>likewise the Bible says in multiple points that humans are second only to God in relevance.
and? this doesn't mean that humans are the only thing that God has created or that understanding creation is something we deserve
BTW, try adding some quotes to your posts, makes them seem less half-assed especially given how easy it is to cite the bible.

[Anonymous No.14275945]

>>14275770
>>14275712
>>14275767
The Christians on this board frustrate me, speaking as a Catholic man. Perhaps if you answered his question more earnestly you might come closer to convincing him. Every atheist here is met with snide comments. It's ridiculous, especially when such a question is so easily answered. Simply put, the second law of thermodynamics requires the universe to be immensely vast in order for it to stick around.

[Anonymous No.14275952]

>>14275945
Because the “christians” here are mostly larpers that see being a christian in the same way the internet saw about being atheist 10-15 years ago.

[Anonymous No.14275953]

Causality is only necessary for that which is contained within space/time
God, Being the Author of space/time, is not beholden to the laws of causality and is thus Himself necessary

[Anonymous No.14275959]

God created himself.

[Anonymous No.14275960]

>>14274947
>independent of space and time, making him non-existent.
Low IQ

[Anonymous No.14275976]

>>14275945
>NOOOOOO STOP BEING MEAN TO BLASPHEMERS!!!!

[Anonymous No.14275978]

>>14274921
BASE

[Anonymous No.14275980]

>>14275784
>love means that you are placed in the center of the lover's entire reason for existing
I'm so sorry for the people around you lol.

[Anonymous No.14275986]

>implying reality exists and you're not all just projections of my consciousness
Fucking retards itt

[Anonymous No.14275988]

>>14275945
>>14275945
I simply recommended scripture which would help illuminate the answers to the question I saw posted, my recommendation was met with smug impiety and a seemingly false claim to have already read and understood said scripture, so I pointed out how the scripture did coincide with the question.
I fail to see what's wrong with this.

[Anonymous No.14275991]

>>14275976
Read the Bible instead of taking delight in needless trolling. You're not supposed to mean to blasphemers for the sake of being mean. This is something you misunderstand. You be mean as a necessity. Trolling atheists instead of attempting to convince them or simply ignoring them is a sin. If you saw a small child who didn't understand that 1+1=2 you wouldn't slap them just because they're wrong, as that would be cruel. That's essentially what you're doing.

[Anonymous No.14276006]

>>14275991
if a child was adamantly proclaiming that 1+1=3, and telling the other kids about his retarded theory, i would slap him, because he deserves to get slapped.

[Anonymous No.14276019]

>>14276006
Why do you think Jesus said "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing."?

[Anonymous No.14276020]

>>14275544
gullible as fug

[Anonymous No.14276046]

>>14276019
did i ever say they are unforgivable?

[Anonymous No.14276084]

>dualism

[Anonymous No.14276152]

>4 Now Thomas (also known as Didymus[a]), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came. 25 So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord!”
>But he said to them, “Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe.”
>26 A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” 27 Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.”
>28 Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!”
>29 Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”
Only idiotic christian larpers try to prove god. That includes Aquinas.

[Anonymous No.14276161]

>>14276152
I like Augustines method. First comes faith, then comes proof.
The philosophers trying to "prove" God are just conemplating the divine which is totally okay so long as it doesnt turn worldly and vain

[Anonymous No.14276191]

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

[Anonymous No.14276196]

>>14276191
The only problem with Aquinas's argument is that causality is not provable

[Anonymous No.14276198]

>>14276152
>>14276161
Knowledge is fundamentally knowledge of God (and Knowledge as in True Knowledge, nondual, metaphysical knowledge).

[Anonymous No.14276222]

Dualism and monism are for cuckolds.

[Anonymous No.14276320]

>>14275558
If I met the builder, why would I assume he has always existed, unbuilt? I wouldn't, is the answer. Similarly your analogy fails to identify the creator of the universe as uncaused or all powerful.

[Anonymous No.14276340]

>>14276191
WE

[Anonymous No.14276352]

>>14275735
Buddhism is based on historical events, historical people, historical documents. Things you can research. Things that are verifiable. Either Siddhartha achieved nirvana under that tree, or he didn't, you know? No feelings involved there.

[Anonymous No.14276355]

>>14276198
>Knowledge of the Holy is understanding

[Anonymous No.14276363]

>>14276352
>Either Siddhartha achieved nirvana under that tree, or he didn't, you know?
And he didn't. Case closed

[Anonymous No.14276393]

>>14276352
>LOOKED GUYS SOME OLD SHITSKIN COOMED UNDER A TREE LETS ALL WORSHIP HIM AND SHIT IN THE STREET!!!!!

[Anonymous No.14276400]

>>14276393
I'm not the guy you're replying to but your response was so pathetically stupid that you should probably be bullied

[Anonymous No.14276408]

>>14275945
The last post you replied to was just making a manlet joke, kek. Learn to laugh a bit, you grumpy fart.

[Anonymous No.14276416]

>>14276400
>I'm not the guy you're replying to but your response was so pathetically stupid that you should probably be bullied

[Anonymous No.14276417]

>>14276400
not a very buddhist response anon.

[Anonymous No.14276426]

>>14276417
I'm not buddhist.
>>14276416
How do you live with yourself posting such stupid shit?

[Anonymous No.14276431]

>>14276417
You can recognize the values of Buddha's teachings without being buddhist.

[Anonymous No.14276442]

>>14274947
hurr durr god stone too heavy
this r/atheism-tier argument has been refuted so many times it hurts my eyes to look at it
what are semantics

[Anonymous No.14276444]

>>14276431
there are no values in it.

[Anonymous No.14276474]

>>14276426
>How do you live with yourself posting such stupid shit?

[Anonymous No.14276476]

>>14274933
>axioms
Do you know what an axiom is?

[Anonymous No.14276522]

>>14275233
>[Unnamed phenomenon] doesn't have to be [Unnamed phenomenon], it could be an unnamed phenomenon after all.

[Anonymous No.14276533]

>>14276474
Let me tell you something that you need to know: You're a punk, and I'll tell you why. The cold hot truth is that you act without knowing why; the most egregious thing a person to do. You repulse me inside and out, with your basedjak posts. I'm not being funny. I genuinely want you to know this: What you are doing right now is quite possibly the WORST thing a man can do. What you're doing is satanically indulging in your ignorance for egotistic reasons. You take pride in indulging in the worst aspect of humanity. Fuck you. Idiot. Indulging in ignorance for gratitude is the causality of rape, murder, theft, and other annoying actions. I really want someone to club you in the head with a fucking metal rod for what you're doing right now. As a matter of fact, you already act like you have been. Perhaps you're missing particular components of the human brain that leads one to empathy, rationality, and love for humanity. You need to be stomped out like the rat you are. I genuinely believe that if we removed people like you, we would live in dreamlike state where all is good and the concept of badness is absent. I genuinely believe that what you're doing right now is what leads to the concept of badness to begin with. You're why the world is so shit, fuck you, basedjak poster.

[Anonymous No.14276582]

>>14276320
>being this dense

[Anonymous No.14276595]

>>14274917
Why do people argue against the Summa without having read it? Serious question.

[Anonymous No.14276605]

>>14276222
multiplicity is part of Oneness, polytheism is monism unless you're an idiot that doesn't actually understand the metaphysics and enjoys LARPing

[Anonymous No.14276610]

>>14276595
Because the urge to disprove God is so demanding that reading thousand of pages that run the risk of prooving something that you just refuse to accept as true is too much work.

[Anonymous No.14276624]

>important question
>objection 1: some dude in a historically unsound, a dozen times translated in the biggest game of telephone in history, said this
>objection 2: this other dude said this while jerking off thinking of god
>objection 3: principles upon principles either part of circular logic or "dude God said so lmao"
>synthesis: Have this response out of my ass because it's obvious, otherwise you just don't get it.

So this is the wit of Christianity's most famous thinker

[Anonymous No.14276651]

>>14276610
the parts about God's nature are contained in one volume thats only like 500 pages, half of which, in the edition i own, is the original latin. plus its organized in such a way that its very easy to navigate so as to answer whatever specific question you have. its structured around 49 separate questions about God anyone may have.

[Anonymous No.14276685]

>>14276533
What the fuck did you just fucking say about me, you little bitch? I'll have you know I graduated top of my class in the Navy Seals, and I've been involved in numerous secret raids on Al-Quaeda, and I have over 300 confirmed kills. I am trained in gorilla warfare and I'm the top sniper in the entire US armed forces. You are nothing to me but just another target. I will wipe you the fuck out with precision the likes of which has never been seen before on this Earth, mark my fucking words. You think you can get away with saying that shit to me over the Internet? Think again, fucker. As we speak I am contacting my secret network of spies across the USA and your IP is being traced right now so you better prepare for the storm, maggot. The storm that wipes out the pathetic little thing you call your life. You're fucking dead, kid. I can be anywhere, anytime, and I can kill you in over seven hundred ways, and that's just with my bare hands. Not only am I extensively trained in unarmed combat, but I have access to the entire arsenal of the United States Marine Corps and I will use it to its full extent to wipe your miserable ass off the face of the continent, you little shit. If only you could have known what unholy retribution your little "clever" comment was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would have held your fucking tongue. But you couldn't, you didn't, and now you're paying the price, you goddamn idiot. I will shit fury all over you and you will drown in it. You're fucking dead, kiddo.

[Anonymous No.14276840]

>>14276340
WUZ

[Anonymous No.14276867]

I've been seriously studying Aristotle for about 2 years now and one of the biggest consequences is that it has made me seriously hate atheists. I don't like ignorant people.