[ 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

View post   
File: 351 KB, 1754x2560, 81vfRPFWMtL.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16691218 No.16691218 [Reply] [Original]

Holy guacamole! It all makes sense now. Guess I am a Catholic now. More books like this?

>> No.16691233

>>16691218
I got memed into reading that. Scholasticism is for retards

>> No.16691260

>>16691233
Pretty sure the arguments are all solid.

>> No.16691464

>>16691260
They are. They have not been debunked because they are the truth. Every time some flaggot doesn't understand them he says it's 'for retards' and runs away.

>> No.16691490

>>16691464
The final cause of your post is for me to prove it wrong. Therefore if you try to refute me you're performing an immoral act.

>> No.16691499
File: 8 KB, 249x249, 1596649967662.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16691499

What's his cope as to why he WASN'T retroactively refuted by Hume?

>> No.16691509

As usual, nothing is being said.
Make your case and hear the rebuttal or shut up, coward.

>> No.16691803

>>16691499
>But it’s worse for Hume even than that. Anscombe also asks us to consider how we’d go about determining whether the sort of scenario we’ve been describing really is a case of something coming into existence in the first place, as opposed, say, to merely reappearing from somewhere else where it had already existed. And the answer is that the only way we could do so is by making reference to some cause of the thing’s suddenly being here as being a creating cause, specifically, rather than a transporting one. Thus, the only way we can ultimately make sense of something coming into being is by reference to a cause. What Hume says we can easily conceive not only hasn’t been conceived by him, it seems likely impossible to conceive. 24 So the principle of causality seems secure.
I don't even understand why Hume is so scared of causality.

>> No.16691807

>muh Aquinas
>therefore gawd dun did it
What an absolutely midwit take, holy shit

>> No.16691809

>>16691509
Go and dilate somewhere else.

>> No.16691814

>>16691803
>I don't even understand why Hume is so scared of causality.
Probably because causality is a demonstrably stupid simplification of the world

>> No.16691830

>>16691807
Look at your post.

>> No.16691849

>>16691814
If I take a rock and bash your face with it, there is no causality linking my action to your teeth shattering.

>> No.16691851

>>16691218
kill yourself christcuck

>> No.16691865

>>16691851
Nah, I think I'll follow my final cause instead.

>> No.16692001

>>16691849
The rock is made of the same earth you are, swimming around till they come together as rock and asshole. They will not remain so and swim around to form other things. *causing* the “creation” of other things, as natural as coffee beans are ground into a cappuccino (except that’s a mechanical human process w/e)

So far nothing of substance. Anyone else wanna promote this idiotic book?
Please say no and go find your own board.

>> No.16692101

>>16692001
Once again, please consider dilating elsewhere.

>> No.16692774

>>16691814
>causality is a demonstrably stupid simplification of the world

No, it's not. Hume is silly on this subject.