Certainly more tolerant than Calvinism. St. Thomas denied the idea of the divine right of kings before it was even an issue. He thought that prostitution, while morally evil, should not be proscribed by law because doing so would cause more evil than good. I disagree with many things that St. Thomas said, but I will not deny that his will was good, and that he strove to make the best rational arguments. He was a wise and good man.
@SansAuthoritas Well, 2 Ideas that always come to mind as blatant invented dogma are: 1) That priests shouldn't marry; and 2) don't eat meat on Friday. It seems that the church didn't wnat to pass lands down to the children of the Bishops so they stopped them from marring; and the fish mongers in Italy wanted to sell more fish so they lobbied the church to make meat forbidden on Friday. Why should a secular thing be expressed as a theological one? I mean things like that.
Galeny, the idea that priests shouldn't marry has well-reasoned scriptural foundation. Particularly 1 Corinthians 7, and especially verses 32-35. The Catholic Church allows priests to be married: but not in the Roman Rite. Byzantines, Maronites, and other Eastern rites allow married priests. Anglican converts are also allowed to be married in the Roman Rite. Not eating meat on Friday is now optional, though another sacrifice/prayers must be made instead.
@SansAuthoritas I hate St. Paul. Die now, live later, the end of the world is Nye.I don't believe in SIN, only Crime. I do understand the seclusion of monks. But we are not all monks, and the game of purity in the name of the love of God sometimes gets weird. i.e. Punishing the flesh. We are capable of being more informed today. I put forth POET as an alternative to Priest in the art of knowing, organizing and expressing culture and code. Disciplines for the living.
Die to self now to live in Christ now, AND in eternity is what St. Paul said. Punishing the flesh? Even ascetics don't punish flesh for being flesh. They chastise their BODIES (qua body-soul composite) to remind themselves what flesh is for: to serve the virtuous goals of the spirit. A poet is only as wise as his foundational principles. Mere verse does not virtue make. Virtue causes good verse: not merely aesthetic verse, but verse that builds up the human person as he is.
@SansAuthoritas A secular meaning might be stop being a spoiled slacker and learn discipline, where Jesus stands for virtue. I still find St. Paul Goofy. The flesh is best served in stoical practices. Poets allow for things to be metaphor where Zealots take everything literally. Verse was not the point but i can see why you'd think I meant that. I liked your final comment about the human person.
@SansAuthoritas Our doctors know more about health, our scientist know more about the world, our Astronomers know more about the cosmos. More that the Ancients did. We all need culture, but All of culture is invented, every little bit of it. Hammurabi lived in 1700 b.c. (with Abraham.) and his codes inform ALL that came after. WOULDN'T YOU REVISE HIM? Christ is not a scientist, he is a mystic/neo-platonic/humanist revising the Jews in the light of Hellenism and John the Baptist.
While culture is developed, culture does not have its source in mere scientific facts. It has its source in wisdom that comes from understanding what it means to be a human being. We have the advantage of being able to look back on millenia of human history and select the good aspects of every particular culture and inculcate those values in our own lives. A culture is as good as how accurately reflects the truth of what human nature is.
I am not familiar with the origins of the prohibition on eating meat on Fridays, but it certainly voluntarily outlasted its original intent if it was incited by fishmongers! Many Catholics, while not obliged to abstain from meat, still observe abstinence as a penance: they want to go above and beyond the mere "requirements" in their relationship of love with God. Why should a secular thing be expressed as a theological one? It should not. Jesus warned of wolves.
@SansAuthoritas Sir, please go to you tube, Frank Zappa, Heavenly Bank Account. there you will find a 13 paragraph account of Christianity posted by ME. I am not trying to concert you to Deism or Universalism, but, tell me what you think, please.
@rgaleny Anyway. What is good for living and for virtue concern me. And if some codes Do not really hurt people, then any expression of discipline should be good. But as you know, the mad, the foolish, the opportunists, they can really go off the rail. There seem to be 2 God in the bible, one for Justice and the other who is all rules and no mercy. So in my defense I try to be careful.
@SansAuthoritas Then there's Luther and Galileo. Things like that. Also, there is the true, and there is the good. Exp: there are all the qualities of Carbon, then, there are the uses and problems it has in relation to man and the world. I find it helps to make the distinction. we are living in the Info age. I agree the game changer will be the spreading of true ideas. I'm Pro choice.
Well, thats true. If we believe that God was the creator of the universe, who created God and who created the thing that created God?
The possible answer is, as strange as it sounds: God! Cause if we think of a God, we think of a guy who is so godlike that he simply doesnt give a shit about things like "time" or "space". God has to be the ultimate reason to everything and therefore we can assume per definitonem that God doesnt have to be created. If God was created, he cant be God anymore
@jhoffman132 well there is a major question to both atheist and mono and poly theist that i view "if God or the gods created the universe or multiverse than who created them?" and " if the universe or multiverse just created themselves than that means something can come from nothing, so what cannot create its self (im saying that it is vary possible for God to exist since, something can come from nothing) "
This is quite a good potted version of Aquinas, but it's not true that Aquinas thought the existence of God could be proved by reason alone. His '5 ways' all appeal to things we can observe (the very existence of the universe, and the appearance of order and design), and that was the starting point of his arguments.
@zairekrieger Awesome. But what Thomas was talking about was something indivisible into constituent parts.
Incidentally if you are trying to defend Christian theology; God created or allows the existence of the cholera bacterium, which causes thousands of innocent children a year to die of dysentery.
The Trinity is like a family member. One person in the family can be the the mother, the sister, the daughter, the cousin, the aunt, the niece, the sister-in-law, the daughter-in-law, etc., but they're still all the same person.
@mahboi1100 That person is in no way three people; you're referring to exactly the same thing but with three different names. So the concept of the trinity is no more illuminating than calling God 'Tom' 'Dick and 'Harry'.
No, this person is not three people, but this person performs different tasks according to whichever role they fill at a certain point. The mother part in her will care for the children, the daughter part of her will respect her parents, and, say, the wife will care for the husband. All of these involve different tasks (despite the fact they all involve "caring", which is a limit to this analogy), but they all come from the same person.
In addition (this is the second post), I don't recall doctrine referring to God as three separate people, but rather "forms of existence". Remember, the Trinity does not exist in the Bible, and it is derived from interpretations and analyses made from Scripture. So the true "definition" of Trinity is up to debate, but current, accepted doctrine refers to the Trinity as God's "forms of existence" and not necessarily "schools of existence".
And in reference to you cholera assertion, this gets down into God's ability to be omnipotent and free will. We have free will, and God does not control our lives unless we ask him to aid us (praying). This does not take away from God's omnipotence, though. Having all the power does not mean you have to exercise it. So the bacteria is there by God's choice. But why doesn't He get rid of it if it causes death? Well, if a God exercised its power to destroy something, (...)
wouldn't that make him a "ruler" or "tyrannical" sort of being? This is WHY he doesn't exercise his power: because what benevolent God CONTROLS things? Controlling something would take away from the freedom to be balanced, which may cause hate and distaste for said God. So, leaving the bacteria on Earth allows God to be a benevolent God, giving us complete freedom on Earth. But, getting rid of the bacteria would be helpful? Getting rid of the bacteria completely would ruin (...)
@mahboi1100 What do you mean, why doesn't he get rid of it? Why did he create it in the first place?
You assert it's necessary to the ecosystem: this is something you made up, based on no evidence. Cholera plays no part in the ecosystem. Even if it did, why couldn't God bypass that?
And why did God make it a hideously painful and humiliating disease?
If you unnecessarily created such a thing, you would be sentenced to life in prison for mass murder, and rightly so.
This is a bit more of a tougher question to answer, and, for that reason, I would like to kindly back down from answering it due to the exceedingly large amounts of text I would need to get me point across. Hope you don't mind. I COULD get something to you if you so desire, but I don't feel like posting 15 comment responses to such a small debate.
@mahboi1100 I hope you consider it thoroughly and try to make your conclusions follow the arguments rather than your arguments support your conclusions.
a fundamental step in the ecosystem of earth, causing complete and utter chaos. If you ruled over a kingdom, and chaos existed amongst your people, would that be good? Of course not. The blame will be turned on something, and chaos will grow. In a nutshell, God doesn't get rid of the bacteria because 1) it would take away from the COMPLETE freedom we have and were gifted by God, and 2) it would kick down the pyramid of our ecosystem as we now it. I HOPE this makes sense.
No... because those pieces are not "eggs" themselves. The Holy Trinity dictates that God is 3 parts, but they're all God. This is my way of thinking it: God is like a family member. One person can be a mother, a sister, a cousin, a niece, an aunt, a sister-in-law, a daughter-in-law, etc. But they're still ONLY that single individual. These separate roles perform separate functions for the family, but they still come from the same person.
@mahboi1100 You are right, that does seem like a better explanation! but as a child I understood the egg thing better, and you know, without one part, its not an egg anymore. Thats kind of how I saw it, but you are right.
At time 3:12 answer to the conundrum of the trinity; perhaps God is schizophrenic lol. It makes even more sense when you consider God's behavior as stated in the bible (for sake of conversation I am ignoring that in all probablility the bible is not actually the literal word of God, and that the concpet of God is quite possibly derived from humans personifing nature).
Are you talking about Hume's Induction Fallacy when you say we can't predict the future and it an assumption that science makes about the existence of Natural Laws? If so I 100% agree!!!
@ryan: you can break down the quinquae viae in one sentence:
Who caused the matter, energy and the laws of physics?
And according to the Big Bang theory there was a moment (the Big Bang) in which everything physical started to exist. The only question is, was God the creator or caused the universe itself. The latter of the two assumptions is implausible, because this is a circular argument.
Still scientists are trying to figure out how the Big Bang without some kind of God is possible.
Galileo said: "All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them." We need to start working together to discover the truths of life that we all have in common. This is how we can unite and focus on our essential similarities instead of our dividing differences. Search for "Truth Contest" in Google and click the 1st result, then click "The Present" to open it. What it says will turn this world right-side up if it reaches enough people.
Everyone arguing about science and religion and spiritualality (because they're all seperate hurrrr) in this video just needs to find a copy of "Who is Agent X?" by Neil Mammen. Arguing and expressing your point of view is never going to change anyone's mind, or troll anyone, so quit wasting your own time.
@DonZabu Or an impersonal "force" rather than a personal god. (Uh-oh... are we now going to see "Three Minute Philosophy: George Lucas"? Just as well him as Aquinas IMHO!)
All of science is observation and evidence. Experimentation is just advanced observation. All evidence is a form of observation.
Science only makes the assumption that the more probable outcomes are more likely to happen, and the less probable outcomes are less likely to happen.
It makes reasonable assumptions.
Assuming something is true without observation and evidence, without a reason for believing it... you can keep it. I'll stick with science and consider you mad.
And how did we come to understand the Heisenburg Uncertainty Principle? Observation and evidence. No, we can't tell both the vector and velocity of an electron, we can tell only one or the other with any accuracy. It's hard to observe, to say the least. Does that mean we just made up the principal without observation and evidence to guide us to it? Does that mean it was just a wild guess?
Observation and evidence is how the prediction is made that if you let go of a baseball it will fall... the same way as past observation and evidence suggests. It's purely based on observation and evidence.
I said in this case specifically that something "strange and unlikely" could happen, that it was a "product of probability" that we expected a certain result. I never said I knew anything for certain.
Observation and evidence are the only things that make a claim believable.
Dropping a baseball and expecting a specific result is a prediction based on massive amounts of evidence and observation that came before. Could it be wrong, could something strange and unlikely happen? Of course. However it's a product of probability, and by far the most likely thing to happen.
Now, by your logic, not expecting natural observation or evidence and believing something anyway, you'd have to believe anything anyone ever proposed at face value, everything at once.
So without evidence we should simply assume we're living in a computer simulation, and base our entire lives on it? As well as assuming there are gods and live our life based on it? Every religion ever created might be true so we should just follow all of them blindly at once because they can't be disproven?
How would you even attempt that?
The world would simply collapse into madness.
Observation and evidence are imperfect, but I prefer them to random conjecture.
Of course our senses are fallible... that's why we test things over and over, and peer review, and use less fallible machine sensors. Even then the data could be wrong... but it's all we have. There's no competitor.
Hypothetically, the whole world could be a complex computer simulation and reality just a fake, but simply assuming it as truth without evidence would be idiotic. The supernatural is in the same boat... it's just a hypothetical with no foundation. Useless.
The natural is everything that is observed or has reasonable evidence for its' existence. If something is not observed to any acceptable degree, how does ANYONE believe it. How is it remotely reasonable?
The supernatural is just a mix of over active imagination, rumor, primitive superstition and tradition, and charlatans taking advantage of the gullible.
Evidence and observation are reality. Without it, you have nothing but unsubstantiated rumors and lies.
All supernatural events, if recorded properly and without ambiguity or likely hood of fraud, could be proven, and become part of the natural order.
If it were proven that there were ghosts beyond a doubt, and that's what happened to people under certain conditions, well by golly, it'd be considered natural at that point, just another wonder of nature.
Supernatural events are just claims made without sufficient evidence to become natural events.
Again, I know this video places humor over accuracy, but it misrepresents Aquinas for no good reason
At 3:06-26 it says Aquinas taught that the Trinity was above rational understanding because the Trinity is 3 entirely separate beings yet 1 indivisible being
But Aquinas denied this, explaining that the Trinity was 1 essence, substance, or being (= Godness or Godhood or Godhead) yet 3 hypostases or subsistences (= relations or persons)--he never said the Trinity was “3 entirely separate beings”
I know this video places humor over accuracy, but it misrepresents Aquinas for no good reason.
At 1:14-18 we hear that Aquinas said it IS possible to prove God’s existence a priori--i.e., with reason alone, aside from using any of the 5 senses.
But Aquinas REJECTED this idea of Anselm (and Anselm’s a priori ontological argument).
Indeed, the 5 ways of Aquinas are A POSTERIORI, not a priori--i.e., they are posterior, not PRIOR, to the use of the senses and thus are not through reason alone.
'V's are pronounced like 'w's in Latin and -ae is pronounce like 'eye'. Excluding diphthongs such as -ae, each vowel will denote its own syllable in Latin.
2. "God" = Natural chemicals that combined from unicellular to multicellular organisms.
3. Tons of things are unnecessary, Justin Bieber, Dinosaurs, etc.
4. "Good" and "Bad" are compared to our necessity of survival.
5. In biotic things: Goal is survival, set by natural instincts. In abiotic things: there is no goal.
Of course I am just stating facts not opinions. On the contrary all of these things of course could have been started by God, except that he'd need a mover.
@cheddercheese99 All non sequiturs. "God isn't real because there are laws of physics and chemicals and stuff" "The fact the universe is unnecessary is disproved by the fact lots of things in it are unnecessary" What..? "Goal is survival and survival determines good and bad because survival is somehow objectively better than dying because..." Wait, survival is what makes things good or bad because survival is good? Tautology bro.
Thomas Aquinas is a hypocrite. He stated that if nothing can create itself there must be one uncreated creator. If nothing can create itself, than there is no uncreated creator! He just saaid that one sentence ago! The fact of the matter is, that the only "uncreated creator" is nature itself, but since it is not a tangable thing, but rather an omnipresent force. If you want to really bridge the (infinite) gap between faith and reason, just say that nature is God, not God created nature.
@cheddercheese99 "But who made God?!" is a silly argument coming from someone who claims things can exist without causes. Clearly something had to violate causality somehow. You're just a materialist so you believe it MUST have been a materialistic cause. How exactly is automatically assuming something scientific just because it's materialistic?
if god existed he was created by the fact that bact then there were no laws of physics to say that he cannot..... hence he had a certain % quantum state of existing..... in this quantum universe he did and accidentily created the laws of physics.... so god is an accident of the cosmos... making us an even bigger accident.
I really like your videos man, but the proofs given by Aquinas are A POSTERIORI, and that's an important point! The ontological proof given by Aselm is today perhaps the most famous A PRIORI argument of God's existance, which, plainly speaking, means that it is a proof based on reasoning alone, as you say. However, AQUINAS' proofs are based on observational data from which he discerns the 'effects' of God - so they are A POSTERIORI arguments, grounded in empirical data.
@jenslyn87 This video is stupidly biased and ignorant anyway.
Which rational arguments did atheists use in St. Aquinas's time? Spontaneous generation? An eternal universe?
And Aquinas did not say "well, you just have to trust God [about the trinity]." He said, essentially, that it was something that could not be reached with reason alone. It's like saying m-theory can't be proven because we don't have particle accelerators the size of the universe. And note, he still philosophized about it.
Either way it's silly and internally contradictory conjecture. Does it really matter what you call it? It's just religious rhetoric one way or another.
Well I think it's important to realize that Aquinas did away with the idea that God's existence could be proven by rationalist contemplation alone, but required the study and inferences built on empirical observations. That's quite a philosophical schism exemplified.
What do you think is internally contradictory in the arguments proposed by Aquinas?
His whole argument is based on everything needing a cause. The problem that brings up, of course, is infinite regression.
So he then posits that there must be some all-powerful being that intristicly violates the very foundation of his own argument, using special pleading to try and make it ok, that is a random bandaid fix for infinite regression.
@Ryakki I have to agree with you that he seems to reach conclusions that do not necessarily follow from his premises, and that he very conveniently posits God as the only thinkable solution to the regression problem.
However, I do not think it's internally contradictory. God is conceptualized as an 'unmoved mover' (Aristotle), and again, that is convenient, but to be internally contradictory I would maintain that his argument would have collapse into absurdity, which I don't see.
Well, we'll have to agree to disagree on that one. Because it seems completely absurd to me.
He just sets up special conditions that exempt the unmoved mover from causality, without any explanation or justification. You take them away and the argument just devours itself.
Not to mention, the universe and deep time, even now, is far beyond our complete understanding... this argument makes some major assumptions that I don't feel it has any right to make in the first place.
"His whole argument is based on everything needing a cause." Maybe the reason why it "boggles" your mind is because you haven't read Aquinas or Aristotle. Aquinas never stated that everything has a cause, so that basically refutes all your criticisms as strawman arguments from the get go.
But that in no way indicates that "everyone who ever drove passed the sign has missed seeing it." Many, many people in the world have strong intellectual reasons for believing in a deity. I'd love to explain them, but this discussion has already gotten too long, and 500 characters is nowhere near enough space to explain them. However, if you are interested in pursuing Truth, you can do some of your own research. I am quite sure you will find some rational explanations of a theistic worldview.
You all seem to be missing the point entirely. Just look back at the last three comments again. All three of you assume that empirical, physical evidence is the only evidence that counts. We call that a naturalistic worldview, which is a presupposition that cannot be proven and must simply be assumed. All of you are making this assumption, mainly because it is the societally-popular thing to do. The signs I was referring to are intellectual, not physical. You cannot photograph a thought.
...This leaves a person with some options. 1) He/she can maintain that only natural things exist, and perhaps we will find some reason in the future as to why the physical constants of the universe are fine-tuned. 2) He/she can form a theory why the physical constants are fine-tuned (such as the existence of a multi-verse, for which there is no evidence at all). 3) He/she can adopt different fundamental assumptions about the world, such as allowing for the existence of the divine
Energy is something that falls under the "material aspects of the world." Here is an example of what I mean, from something that atheist scientists say themselves. The physical constants of the universe appear to be fine-tuned to allow the existence of the universe in general, and of life in particular. They say that there is no physical reason why these physical constants should be fine-tuned like this. Yet, the fact remains that the physical constants are in fact fine-tuned...
The fact of the matter is that no actual scientific facts are incompatible with a theistic, or Christian, worldview. Only scientific theories are incompatible with a Christian worldview. And this is completely un-surprising, because many scientific theories begin, as just mentioned, with the assumption that supernatural phenomena are not possible. Whereas a Christian worldview begins with the assumption that supernatural things are possible. Theism is at odds with naturalism, not with science.
Theories are observations of facts, that have been heavily tested and peer reviewed. They are far above facts, in the scientific world. They are equal to laws in their accuracy and predictive power.
To science, everything is natural. The universe is how it appears to be. If there was suddenly sufficient emperical evidence that a twelve legged spider named Suzie had created the universe, Suzie would be natural, and scientists would work to understand her apparently vast powers.
"Theories are observations of facts, that have been heavily tested and peer reviewed. They are far above facts, in the scientific world. They are equal to laws in their accuracy and predictive power."
Scientific facts are irrefutable truths. Example of a fact: objects that have mass fall toward Earth when they are sufficiently close to it.
Example of a theory: This happens because of a warping in the fabric of space time.
Theories try to explain "why" and thus can always be wrong.
In organisms with short generational gaps, evolution can be directly observed. Speciation has been observed. The genetic evidence is monumental. The "living organisms change over time and create new species in the process" part is the fact.
The theory is evolution through natural selection.
In the incredibly rare case where a theory is incorrect... how exactly would it help creationists or somehow create evidence for the supernatural?
@Ryakki Many argue that faith doesn't have a right to stand next to science since due to evidence. But what scientific theories are you referring to? And how much do you really know about them? One of the most prominent scientific figures of natural law is the parallel universe theory. This one explains the big bang and how it was possible. It states: There is a good universe; therefore there must be bad ones. That is how matter was created. That's not evidence. That is forced reasoning.
@Ryakki I was refering to an article published in a scientific newsletter. It was the "modern theory of the day." It stated that in order for matter to exist, the particles that made up the early universe would have to collide with other parts of matter. It also stated that if our universe was created by a natural process, it would follow the rules of probability. Therefore, since our universe is a good outcome, there are bad ones. And that is where the matter came from that made the universe.
@Ryakki And if it sounds stupid, that is because it is. Several scientists who have won the Nobel Prize have refuted their beliefs that the world is mechanistic. Based on new research, such as the "God Particle" and the layers of fossils that DON'T support the gradual natural seleciton theory, these scientists now believe that although science in itself is true, it should be viewed as a process of thought, not as a machine with universal outcomes. Hence where faith comes in.
I went searching for your "monumental genetic evidence" that speciation has been observed in bacteria. I found one actual scientific study. In this study, e. coli bacteria went through 30,000 generations of not being able to metabolize citrate, until one group showed evidence of "developing" this ability. This is interesting, but one study does not a law make. Also, it is possible that the ability to metabolize citrate is a genetic trait of all e. coli that just happens to be very rare.
Looking back at what I wrote I see what I wrote was confusing.
The comments were separate.
We can directly observe evolution in oranisms with short generational gaps... also, we have observed speciation events several times in various organisms... and, the genetic evidence spanning all life on earth is monumentally demonstrative of evolution.
Aquinas was one line of reasoning away from being John Calvin. Though, he was smart enough to never actually WRITE IT DOWN, since that would have landed him on the fire. It's how it goes when you apply logics to Christianity -- you'll end up with determinism.
@255ad Because its incompatible with free will, and then there'd be no such thing as salvation. Calvinism is a heresy according to the RCC, and had Aquinas both embraced Aristotle and committed heresy, he'd likely been a Torch for Christ.
@cheddarsandwich Apparently he would have been in Hell (along with a whole bunch of people the Church loves) until Jesus died and descended, saved them and took them to heaven...
@255ad No not really... no true time scale in the infinite. And not hell as we imagine it now, a place for sinners, but just an intermediate 'awaiting' state like purgatory. For 'where is he then'? the answer from the Church would be that no man can know the fate of another's soul, but there's no reason from Aristotle's profile to say that he wouldn't have attained heaven.
I looked in the comments, expecting an ongoing shit storm, where people would be attempting to trample over each others egos and/or stroking their own.
Atheists believe in everything, we believe in the entire universe in all its' majesty. You believe in a narrow superstitious worldview that prevents you from exploring and investigating the world and seeing all its' true majesty. The bible is TINY, it's beyond tiny, the entire scope of it is the most mundane bronze age view of reality with some magic sprinkled in.
Regardless, Aquinas' goal on this argument was to replace faith with logic. I'll judge it as a logical proof.
@Ryakki "that prevents you from exploring and investigating the world and seeing all its' true majesty"
OMG! How did I miss this?! I LOVE this claim from atheists! It's one of my favorite ad homs because its so easily disproven.
First of all, you have no way of seeing into the heads of religious people, so you're overextending your reach. This is as purient as religious people claiming you're just an atheist because you feel guilty about sin...
Like most in the US I was raised christian. I believed it because... well, it's what mom tells ya. I guess I started to doubt early... my mom remembers me mentioning serious doubts as we were on our way to church when I was 5 years old, lol... but I did believe. Church twice a week, church camp in the summer. I understand the point of view because I lived it. As have most atheists.
It's an assertion of understanding... not ignorance. It's a very narrow limiting world view.
@Ryakki Which of the 38,000 some denominations of Christianity were you raised in? Given that you have the misfortune of being American, I am going to guess that there is a strongly likelihood of it being a more conservative branch, which would have certainly skewed your perspective. Therein lies the problem: this is an anecdote. It is not evidence. Show me a properly conducted survey proving that NO Christian has a scientific education or disposition towards peak experience in nature.
It wasn't terribly conservative, but I still found it unbelievable and at odds with science and logic pretty early on.
I'm just explaining that I do understand the religious point of view... well... kind of... it's like understanding a kids point of view, yes you were a kid once, but the way you view the world now is SO fundamentally different that sometimes it's hard to remember, or have empathy on a DEEP level.
And there are religious scientists... like deaf musicians, lol.
@Ryakki No lols about it. There are religious scientists. Period. Full stop. If you are not religious or a scientist, then you have no opinion on the subject. You need merely to sit down and shut up.
The funny thing about X-Xtians is that it's pretty easy to narrow down what denomination they were before. You just have to assess what their Ultimate Proof Against All Religion For All Time is. It is almost invariably nothing more than a critique of the religion they happened to grow up in...
@Ryakki ... That is also the deepest faults of those critiques. You mentioned kids: with nearly equal invariability, those criticisms are directed a children's level of understanding. They make childish arguments against the childish religion they stopped thinking about at 5 or 10 or 15. Then they accuse religious people of sharing these childish beliefs because, hey, you guys were raised in it and totally understand it on a deep, insightful, grown-up level, right?...
@Ryakki ...You, for example, have shown no real, mature undestanding of not only Aquinas' argument, nor the minds of religious ADULTS, but even the terms and context of the argument. You're still confusing rationalism and empiricism, and using thought-terminating, straw man cliches to describe religion. And then you've tried to tell us how you know how we think because of irrational feelings you had as a KID. Go ahead, pull the other one junior.
I had a love from the time I was young for learning, for science, for reason, for the way the world really worked. That was directly at odds with with, as I researched, the more and more obviously untrue stories in the bible, and mostly, the fact that there were 10,000 human gods, each of whose followers made the same claims of exclusive correctness without empirical evidence, and thought the other 9,999 were utterly ridiculous and horrifically wrong.
That's not a childish understanding of something, that's looking into something and questioning it, reaching a frighteningly obvious, if just plain frightening (an afterlife and a sky daddy are very comforting, real death is cold, impersonal, scary as hell, and not something you accept because you WANT it to be true) conclusion, and committing yourself to the truth, rather than what's easy.
A lot of people can't do that.
Don't hate me for taking the path of intellectual honesty.
@Ryakki@Ryakki Hey neat, I like science too! In fact, I teach science in my job and I volunteer with local science organizations in my spare time. I'm also religious. But love for science isn't really at issue. At issue was your childish understanding of religion, complete with your juvenile straw men (oh yes, the EASY route) and self-aggrandizing (oh yes, you're SO much more intellectually honest for making logically fallicious arguments about things you're willfully ignorant about)...
@Ryakki ... FYI, being atheist doesn't automatically give you smart points. It doesn't automatically make you more rational or more scientific or more honest. It just makes you an atheist. Smart is as smart does, and as smart thinks, and as smart says. Straw man arguments, false dilemmas, appeals to ridicule, bad faith arguments and ad homs are not tools that intelligent, thoughtful, and informed people use.
Committing myself to truth over what feels nice, science over superstition, intellectual honesty over comfortable group think... I think that gives me tons of "smart points", honestly.
Religion is willful, voluntary ignorance of reality. That's not an insult, that's just the fact of the matter... and I take away a lot of "smart points" for that.
Scientists who are religious are a walking oxymoron, I have to assume they fully compartmentalize, or are massively conflicted.
@Ryakki And this is exactly why you've stopped being a kid but you haven't actually grown up. To you it's a contest. No wonder you resort to nothing more than insults and cliches, because it's actually not about seeking truth and honesty. It's about SAYING you're seeking truth and honesty so you can THINK you're better than everyone else. Instead of trying to understand even the things you disagree with, you just stamp your feet and whine that it's an "oxymoron" or they're just plain "morons"...
@Ryakki ... In short, you're doing the EXACT SAME THING that so many people, rightly, criticize jerkass fundamentalist Christians of doing. You're ignorantly using other people as stepping stones to feel righteous about yourself. Grow up.
@Ryakki: If you're at all interested in serious discussion with smart guys who disagree with you, you should check out Edward Feser's blog: edwardfeser.blogspot.com
Fair warning: prepare for high-octane intellectual combat.
Religion and science are opposite ways of looking at the world. I feel a scientific world view is a key to true intelligence, methodically and rationally examining and understanding reality. Religion is forcing the facts to fit unfounded, silly, ancient dogma or ignoring facts when they don't fit the dogma to your satisfaction... and individually, it fits every criteria for mental illness.
People who can combine the two some how... confuse me, to say the least.
@Ryakki Religion and science are opposite ways of looking at the world.
that is so completely untrue it is almost painful. Congrats you've ignored thousands of years of philosophy and study to form a completely stupid and false opinion; thank you for wasting the wrold's time
Science is figuring out reality by careful study of the facts. With an open mind, letting the facts tell the story of reality.
Religion is trying to make the facts fit religious dogma. Already having the conclusion, and no matter how wrong it looks at any point, cherry picking and altering facts to support the conclusion.
If those aren't fantastically opposite ways of looking at the world... then I just don't know.
@Ryakki wow you really are as stupid as you look. Ignoring the fact that you clearly don't know the first thing at all about philosophy OR religion (which your statements have just proved completely) you then go and post this on a video that is about Thomas Aquinas; a man who not only tried to study religion scientifically but influenced many others to do so and succeed. Seeing as this fact was mentioned IN THE FUCKING VIDEO you should think about opening a book. If ignorance was bliss...
No, he did not try to study religion scientifically. Science is rational and logical examination of evidence through experimentation or at the least math.
What he tried to do is prove god philosophically through logic and reason without evidence.
And he failed, fantastically. He used the religious style of trying to make the facts fit the conclusion, and ended up with what amounts to a simple argument from ignorance with no significance.
@Ryakki fucking hell...are you really that stupid? Well yes. So despite the fact that the video says it itself and is also correct you obviously no more about the subject? LOL
tell me are people like you born this way or does it take training? So the 5 ways are not logical? Explain how their ideas do not equate to science...how is the second way not scientific? Or the Via Negativa not a logical approach?
@Ryakki he never made the facts fit the conclusion; that was in one of the biggest things about Aquinas; all five of the quinquae viae use evidence and logic. Why are people like you so stupid about this? Open your mind! Actually learn something about the things you are ignorantly making ranting hate speeches about! I genuinely don't understand, your entire argument is destroyed in this video and yet you just don't see it...its ridiculous!
@alternativebassist He imagined something, then made an irrational leap to god. Then said it was the christian god with no apparent basis in fact or reality.
@Ryakki "he imagined something" just what was it he imagined? That everything has a cause? Oh yeah living in a fantasy world there! That language inhibits our descriptive process? Because no-one else has thought of that one! LOL. Or that there was a prime mover? Yep its not like Aristotle or Ibn Saina had the same idea =)
ok what is stopping you from watching the video? The whole problem with Aquinas is that he found issue with the Christian God because it wasn't able to fit his logic perfectly
This is great! But why did you draw God like a bearded sperm?
thewildplaces 1 day ago
But what made God?
billkaulitzlova13 4 days ago
@billkaulitzlova13
God is, by very definition, uncaused. Or else what caused him would be God. And if that was caused, THAT cause would be God, ad infinitum.
AgApE010 3 days ago
i'm a p. staunch athiest but thomas aquinas is straight baller
glottis5 5 days ago
@glottis5
Bravo for your objective treatment of the man's ideas!
SansAuthoritas 5 days ago
Is there a school that follows Aquinas As an Ism.
rgaleny 6 days ago
@rgaleny
Yep. It's called "Thomism," which is a subsegment of "Scholasticism." The school of thought is called the Thomistic school of thought.
SansAuthoritas 5 days ago
@SansAuthoritas Thanks! Was it any more tolerant and humanistic than Dominican-ism or Calvinism?
rgaleny 5 days ago
@rgaleny
Certainly more tolerant than Calvinism. St. Thomas denied the idea of the divine right of kings before it was even an issue. He thought that prostitution, while morally evil, should not be proscribed by law because doing so would cause more evil than good. I disagree with many things that St. Thomas said, but I will not deny that his will was good, and that he strove to make the best rational arguments. He was a wise and good man.
SansAuthoritas 5 days ago
@SansAuthoritas That was a good answer. Yes, I agree!
rgaleny 5 days ago
@rgaleny
He also approved of the idea of women wearing jewelry, contrary to Calvinism.
SansAuthoritas 5 days ago
@SansAuthoritas Don't you think it's strange how dogmas can evolve into some useless and obtuse rules? What can ya do, but publish!
rgaleny 5 days ago
@rgaleny
Well, I'm not sure what examples you have in mind, but I agree that the ultimate societal game-changer is spreading true ideas.
SansAuthoritas 5 days ago
@SansAuthoritas Well, 2 Ideas that always come to mind as blatant invented dogma are: 1) That priests shouldn't marry; and 2) don't eat meat on Friday. It seems that the church didn't wnat to pass lands down to the children of the Bishops so they stopped them from marring; and the fish mongers in Italy wanted to sell more fish so they lobbied the church to make meat forbidden on Friday. Why should a secular thing be expressed as a theological one? I mean things like that.
rgaleny 4 days ago
@rgaleny
Galeny, the idea that priests shouldn't marry has well-reasoned scriptural foundation. Particularly 1 Corinthians 7, and especially verses 32-35. The Catholic Church allows priests to be married: but not in the Roman Rite. Byzantines, Maronites, and other Eastern rites allow married priests. Anglican converts are also allowed to be married in the Roman Rite. Not eating meat on Friday is now optional, though another sacrifice/prayers must be made instead.
SansAuthoritas 4 days ago
@SansAuthoritas I hate St. Paul. Die now, live later, the end of the world is Nye.I don't believe in SIN, only Crime. I do understand the seclusion of monks. But we are not all monks, and the game of purity in the name of the love of God sometimes gets weird. i.e. Punishing the flesh. We are capable of being more informed today. I put forth POET as an alternative to Priest in the art of knowing, organizing and expressing culture and code. Disciplines for the living.
rgaleny 4 days ago
@rgaleny
Die to self now to live in Christ now, AND in eternity is what St. Paul said. Punishing the flesh? Even ascetics don't punish flesh for being flesh. They chastise their BODIES (qua body-soul composite) to remind themselves what flesh is for: to serve the virtuous goals of the spirit. A poet is only as wise as his foundational principles. Mere verse does not virtue make. Virtue causes good verse: not merely aesthetic verse, but verse that builds up the human person as he is.
SansAuthoritas 4 days ago
@SansAuthoritas A secular meaning might be stop being a spoiled slacker and learn discipline, where Jesus stands for virtue. I still find St. Paul Goofy. The flesh is best served in stoical practices. Poets allow for things to be metaphor where Zealots take everything literally. Verse was not the point but i can see why you'd think I meant that. I liked your final comment about the human person.
rgaleny 4 days ago
@SansAuthoritas Our doctors know more about health, our scientist know more about the world, our Astronomers know more about the cosmos. More that the Ancients did. We all need culture, but All of culture is invented, every little bit of it. Hammurabi lived in 1700 b.c. (with Abraham.) and his codes inform ALL that came after. WOULDN'T YOU REVISE HIM? Christ is not a scientist, he is a mystic/neo-platonic/humanist revising the Jews in the light of Hellenism and John the Baptist.
rgaleny 4 days ago
@rgaleny
While culture is developed, culture does not have its source in mere scientific facts. It has its source in wisdom that comes from understanding what it means to be a human being. We have the advantage of being able to look back on millenia of human history and select the good aspects of every particular culture and inculcate those values in our own lives. A culture is as good as how accurately reflects the truth of what human nature is.
SansAuthoritas 4 days ago
@SansAuthoritas That was beautiful.
rgaleny 4 days ago
@rgaleny
LOL. Shoot me your email via channel inbox, so we can continue this discussion in a lag-free fashion. : )
SansAuthoritas 4 days ago
@SansAuthoritas I can not right now, I have work. But I will try later or tomorrow. OK Shanti!!
rgaleny 4 days ago
@rgaleny
Sounds good. Peace, brother.
SansAuthoritas 4 days ago
@rgaleny
I am not familiar with the origins of the prohibition on eating meat on Fridays, but it certainly voluntarily outlasted its original intent if it was incited by fishmongers! Many Catholics, while not obliged to abstain from meat, still observe abstinence as a penance: they want to go above and beyond the mere "requirements" in their relationship of love with God. Why should a secular thing be expressed as a theological one? It should not. Jesus warned of wolves.
SansAuthoritas 4 days ago
@SansAuthoritas Sir, please go to you tube, Frank Zappa, Heavenly Bank Account. there you will find a 13 paragraph account of Christianity posted by ME. I am not trying to concert you to Deism or Universalism, but, tell me what you think, please.
rgaleny 4 days ago
@rgaleny
I think we can agree that despite our disparate beliefs, YouTube is a terrible medium for serious discussion. : )
SansAuthoritas 4 days ago
@rgaleny Anyway. What is good for living and for virtue concern me. And if some codes Do not really hurt people, then any expression of discipline should be good. But as you know, the mad, the foolish, the opportunists, they can really go off the rail. There seem to be 2 God in the bible, one for Justice and the other who is all rules and no mercy. So in my defense I try to be careful.
rgaleny 4 days ago
@rgaleny
Do mercy and justice coexist in yourself? Or do you believe they are polar opposites, incapable of being synthesized?
SansAuthoritas 4 days ago
@SansAuthoritas Yes they do, and It helps to take it one case at a time.
rgaleny 4 days ago
@SansAuthoritas Then there's Luther and Galileo. Things like that. Also, there is the true, and there is the good. Exp: there are all the qualities of Carbon, then, there are the uses and problems it has in relation to man and the world. I find it helps to make the distinction. we are living in the Info age. I agree the game changer will be the spreading of true ideas. I'm Pro choice.
rgaleny 4 days ago
The five ways arent a priori they are a posteriori.
NewLeftFun 6 days ago
What about doing a video on Jiddu Krishnamurti, or on Thich Nhat Hanh. :-)
TheaDragonSpirit 1 week ago
I find this totally interesting and very clearly explained. Thank you for producing and posting!
VitoPossilipo 1 week ago 2
snackbar47, (like)
ericshw171 2 weeks ago
my global teacher just showed us this today..i literally fell out of my chair laughing when they said "OH YEAH WELL I HAVE MORE HAIR"!
TheMelikecheese123 2 weeks ago
Well, thats true. If we believe that God was the creator of the universe, who created God and who created the thing that created God?
The possible answer is, as strange as it sounds: God! Cause if we think of a God, we think of a guy who is so godlike that he simply doesnt give a shit about things like "time" or "space". God has to be the ultimate reason to everything and therefore we can assume per definitonem that God doesnt have to be created. If God was created, he cant be God anymore
jhoffmann132 2 weeks ago
@jhoffman132 well there is a major question to both atheist and mono and poly theist that i view "if God or the gods created the universe or multiverse than who created them?" and " if the universe or multiverse just created themselves than that means something can come from nothing, so what cannot create its self (im saying that it is vary possible for God to exist since, something can come from nothing) "
xPray2die2dayx 2 weeks ago
whats edison saying in the intro ?
xPray2die2dayx 2 weeks ago
This is quite a good potted version of Aquinas, but it's not true that Aquinas thought the existence of God could be proved by reason alone. His '5 ways' all appeal to things we can observe (the very existence of the universe, and the appearance of order and design), and that was the starting point of his arguments.
ejc551 3 weeks ago 2
Love it!!
missrosito 1 month ago
Could Jesus microwave a burrito so hot that he himself could not eat it?
reliwhat 1 month ago in playlist Three Minute Philosophy
An egg has three parts, but its still one egg, right? There ya have it, the trinity.
zairekrieger 1 month ago
@zairekrieger Cool philosophy bro. I ate a boiled trinity today.
gorgolyt 1 month ago
@gorgolyt it is supposed to be a simile...
zairekrieger 1 month ago
@zairekrieger Awesome. But what Thomas was talking about was something indivisible into constituent parts.
Incidentally if you are trying to defend Christian theology; God created or allows the existence of the cholera bacterium, which causes thousands of innocent children a year to die of dysentery.
gorgolyt 1 month ago
@gorgolyt
The Trinity is like a family member. One person in the family can be the the mother, the sister, the daughter, the cousin, the aunt, the niece, the sister-in-law, the daughter-in-law, etc., but they're still all the same person.
mahboi1100 1 month ago
@mahboi1100 That person is in no way three people; you're referring to exactly the same thing but with three different names. So the concept of the trinity is no more illuminating than calling God 'Tom' 'Dick and 'Harry'.
Also, cholera.
gorgolyt 1 month ago
@gorgolyt
No, this person is not three people, but this person performs different tasks according to whichever role they fill at a certain point. The mother part in her will care for the children, the daughter part of her will respect her parents, and, say, the wife will care for the husband. All of these involve different tasks (despite the fact they all involve "caring", which is a limit to this analogy), but they all come from the same person.
mahboi1100 1 month ago
@gorgolyt
In addition (this is the second post), I don't recall doctrine referring to God as three separate people, but rather "forms of existence". Remember, the Trinity does not exist in the Bible, and it is derived from interpretations and analyses made from Scripture. So the true "definition" of Trinity is up to debate, but current, accepted doctrine refers to the Trinity as God's "forms of existence" and not necessarily "schools of existence".
mahboi1100 1 month ago
@gorgolyt
And in reference to you cholera assertion, this gets down into God's ability to be omnipotent and free will. We have free will, and God does not control our lives unless we ask him to aid us (praying). This does not take away from God's omnipotence, though. Having all the power does not mean you have to exercise it. So the bacteria is there by God's choice. But why doesn't He get rid of it if it causes death? Well, if a God exercised its power to destroy something, (...)
mahboi1100 1 month ago
@gorgolyt
wouldn't that make him a "ruler" or "tyrannical" sort of being? This is WHY he doesn't exercise his power: because what benevolent God CONTROLS things? Controlling something would take away from the freedom to be balanced, which may cause hate and distaste for said God. So, leaving the bacteria on Earth allows God to be a benevolent God, giving us complete freedom on Earth. But, getting rid of the bacteria would be helpful? Getting rid of the bacteria completely would ruin (...)
mahboi1100 1 month ago
@mahboi1100 What do you mean, why doesn't he get rid of it? Why did he create it in the first place?
You assert it's necessary to the ecosystem: this is something you made up, based on no evidence. Cholera plays no part in the ecosystem. Even if it did, why couldn't God bypass that?
And why did God make it a hideously painful and humiliating disease?
If you unnecessarily created such a thing, you would be sentenced to life in prison for mass murder, and rightly so.
gorgolyt 1 month ago
@gorgolyt
This is a bit more of a tougher question to answer, and, for that reason, I would like to kindly back down from answering it due to the exceedingly large amounts of text I would need to get me point across. Hope you don't mind. I COULD get something to you if you so desire, but I don't feel like posting 15 comment responses to such a small debate.
mahboi1100 4 weeks ago
@mahboi1100 I hope you consider it thoroughly and try to make your conclusions follow the arguments rather than your arguments support your conclusions.
gorgolyt 4 weeks ago
@gorgolyt
a fundamental step in the ecosystem of earth, causing complete and utter chaos. If you ruled over a kingdom, and chaos existed amongst your people, would that be good? Of course not. The blame will be turned on something, and chaos will grow. In a nutshell, God doesn't get rid of the bacteria because 1) it would take away from the COMPLETE freedom we have and were gifted by God, and 2) it would kick down the pyramid of our ecosystem as we now it. I HOPE this makes sense.
mahboi1100 1 month ago
@zairekrieger
No... because those pieces are not "eggs" themselves. The Holy Trinity dictates that God is 3 parts, but they're all God. This is my way of thinking it: God is like a family member. One person can be a mother, a sister, a cousin, a niece, an aunt, a sister-in-law, a daughter-in-law, etc. But they're still ONLY that single individual. These separate roles perform separate functions for the family, but they still come from the same person.
mahboi1100 1 month ago
@mahboi1100 You are right, that does seem like a better explanation! but as a child I understood the egg thing better, and you know, without one part, its not an egg anymore. Thats kind of how I saw it, but you are right.
zairekrieger 1 month ago
Well, trinity does make a lot of sense.
giorgiv18 1 month ago
I think you skipped St. Augustine...
JohannesenBergur 1 month ago
1+1= Bible. Brilliant!!
0211brucetube 1 month ago
At time 3:12 answer to the conundrum of the trinity; perhaps God is schizophrenic lol. It makes even more sense when you consider God's behavior as stated in the bible (for sake of conversation I am ignoring that in all probablility the bible is not actually the literal word of God, and that the concpet of God is quite possibly derived from humans personifing nature).
DerekBCD 1 month ago
@fuck192ass
Are you talking about Hume's Induction Fallacy when you say we can't predict the future and it an assumption that science makes about the existence of Natural Laws? If so I 100% agree!!!
UncannyRicardo 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
search my ebook its free
go to amazon and search impossible is nothing philosophy
its 10 pages it will amaze you
TheGaragesale101 1 month ago
@ryan: you can break down the quinquae viae in one sentence:
Who caused the matter, energy and the laws of physics?
And according to the Big Bang theory there was a moment (the Big Bang) in which everything physical started to exist. The only question is, was God the creator or caused the universe itself. The latter of the two assumptions is implausible, because this is a circular argument.
Still scientists are trying to figure out how the Big Bang without some kind of God is possible.
jhoffmann132 1 month ago
NEVER STOP MAKING VIDEOS!
culturedgraffiti 1 month ago 47
My history teacher showed this to my class.
TheSisirox 1 month ago 20
Simplified solutions to the Quinquae Viae
1 Forces cause things to be set in motion while they themselves are not in motion
2 There is no proof that anything was ever created to begin with ergo this argument is based on an assumption
3 Conservation of matter/energy states they can not be destroyed i.e, must exist in some way, shape, or form
4 We compare things to better or worse things i.e, 9 > 8 and 9 < 10. Subjective not objective
5 Forces and the laws of physics
Opposing views welcomed
Ryan1468 1 month ago in playlist Three Minute Philosophy
"Oh yeah, well I have more hair" hahahah love it.
wbrutus22 2 months ago
Galileo said: "All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them." We need to start working together to discover the truths of life that we all have in common. This is how we can unite and focus on our essential similarities instead of our dividing differences. Search for "Truth Contest" in Google and click the 1st result, then click "The Present" to open it. What it says will turn this world right-side up if it reaches enough people.
UnifyingTruthProject 2 months ago
Everyone arguing about science and religion and spiritualality (because they're all seperate hurrrr) in this video just needs to find a copy of "Who is Agent X?" by Neil Mammen. Arguing and expressing your point of view is never going to change anyone's mind, or troll anyone, so quit wasting your own time.
TheF1nalResistance 2 months ago
For what it's worth, none of those arguments really point towards a Catholic god. If anything, they point towards deism.
DonZabu 2 months ago
@DonZabu Or an impersonal "force" rather than a personal god. (Uh-oh... are we now going to see "Three Minute Philosophy: George Lucas"? Just as well him as Aquinas IMHO!)
bjggjb 2 months ago
@fuck192ass
All of science is observation and evidence. Experimentation is just advanced observation. All evidence is a form of observation.
Science only makes the assumption that the more probable outcomes are more likely to happen, and the less probable outcomes are less likely to happen.
It makes reasonable assumptions.
Assuming something is true without observation and evidence, without a reason for believing it... you can keep it. I'll stick with science and consider you mad.
Ryakki 2 months ago
@Ryakki
"All of science is observation and evidence"
See Quantum mechanics
Madpolis7 2 months ago
@Madpolis7
Quantum mechanics is inferred based on observation and evidence, and agrees in its' predictions with all observation and evidence.
We have technology that only works based on the predictions of quantum mechanics. It's not exactly what you'd call guesswork.
Ryakki 2 months ago
@Ryakki
See the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.
Madpolis7 2 months ago
@Ryakki
And how did we come to understand the Heisenburg Uncertainty Principle? Observation and evidence. No, we can't tell both the vector and velocity of an electron, we can tell only one or the other with any accuracy. It's hard to observe, to say the least. Does that mean we just made up the principal without observation and evidence to guide us to it? Does that mean it was just a wild guess?
Of course not.
Ryakki 2 months ago
@fuck192ass
Observation and evidence is how the prediction is made that if you let go of a baseball it will fall... the same way as past observation and evidence suggests. It's purely based on observation and evidence.
I said in this case specifically that something "strange and unlikely" could happen, that it was a "product of probability" that we expected a certain result. I never said I knew anything for certain.
Observation and evidence are the only things that make a claim believable.
Ryakki 2 months ago
@fuck192ass
Dropping a baseball and expecting a specific result is a prediction based on massive amounts of evidence and observation that came before. Could it be wrong, could something strange and unlikely happen? Of course. However it's a product of probability, and by far the most likely thing to happen.
Now, by your logic, not expecting natural observation or evidence and believing something anyway, you'd have to believe anything anyone ever proposed at face value, everything at once.
Ryakki 2 months ago
@fuck192ass
So without evidence we should simply assume we're living in a computer simulation, and base our entire lives on it? As well as assuming there are gods and live our life based on it? Every religion ever created might be true so we should just follow all of them blindly at once because they can't be disproven?
How would you even attempt that?
The world would simply collapse into madness.
Observation and evidence are imperfect, but I prefer them to random conjecture.
Ryakki 2 months ago
@fuck192ass
Of course our senses are fallible... that's why we test things over and over, and peer review, and use less fallible machine sensors. Even then the data could be wrong... but it's all we have. There's no competitor.
Hypothetically, the whole world could be a complex computer simulation and reality just a fake, but simply assuming it as truth without evidence would be idiotic. The supernatural is in the same boat... it's just a hypothetical with no foundation. Useless.
Ryakki 2 months ago
@fuck192ass
The natural is everything that is observed or has reasonable evidence for its' existence. If something is not observed to any acceptable degree, how does ANYONE believe it. How is it remotely reasonable?
The supernatural is just a mix of over active imagination, rumor, primitive superstition and tradition, and charlatans taking advantage of the gullible.
Evidence and observation are reality. Without it, you have nothing but unsubstantiated rumors and lies.
Ryakki 2 months ago
@fuck192ass
All supernatural events, if recorded properly and without ambiguity or likely hood of fraud, could be proven, and become part of the natural order.
If it were proven that there were ghosts beyond a doubt, and that's what happened to people under certain conditions, well by golly, it'd be considered natural at that point, just another wonder of nature.
Supernatural events are just claims made without sufficient evidence to become natural events.
Ryakki 2 months ago
lmfao... die hard... good arbitrary choice
SuperMrLahlou 2 months ago
Again, I know this video places humor over accuracy, but it misrepresents Aquinas for no good reason
At 3:06-26 it says Aquinas taught that the Trinity was above rational understanding because the Trinity is 3 entirely separate beings yet 1 indivisible being
But Aquinas denied this, explaining that the Trinity was 1 essence, substance, or being (= Godness or Godhood or Godhead) yet 3 hypostases or subsistences (= relations or persons)--he never said the Trinity was “3 entirely separate beings”
Erlo3 2 months ago in playlist Literature & Books: Shakespeare Summaries
I know this video places humor over accuracy, but it misrepresents Aquinas for no good reason.
At 1:14-18 we hear that Aquinas said it IS possible to prove God’s existence a priori--i.e., with reason alone, aside from using any of the 5 senses.
But Aquinas REJECTED this idea of Anselm (and Anselm’s a priori ontological argument).
Indeed, the 5 ways of Aquinas are A POSTERIORI, not a priori--i.e., they are posterior, not PRIOR, to the use of the senses and thus are not through reason alone.
Erlo3 2 months ago in playlist Literature & Books: Shakespeare Summaries
@rhuarc --> hi teacher ;D haha.
damanw 2 months ago
God in three parts that are the same.
Think of an egg.
The Shell, The Yolk and The Non-White White.
All separate but together at the same time, weird no?
Evsta101 2 months ago
I want bacon now.
madderbass 2 months ago
quinquae viae: qween-qw-eye wee-eye
via negativa: wee-uh neg-uh-tee-wa
'V's are pronounced like 'w's in Latin and -ae is pronounce like 'eye'. Excluding diphthongs such as -ae, each vowel will denote its own syllable in Latin.
KleioHistory 2 months ago
1. "God" = Nature
2. "God" = Natural chemicals that combined from unicellular to multicellular organisms.
3. Tons of things are unnecessary, Justin Bieber, Dinosaurs, etc.
4. "Good" and "Bad" are compared to our necessity of survival.
5. In biotic things: Goal is survival, set by natural instincts. In abiotic things: there is no goal.
Of course I am just stating facts not opinions. On the contrary all of these things of course could have been started by God, except that he'd need a mover.
5.
cheddercheese99 3 months ago
@cheddercheese99 All non sequiturs. "God isn't real because there are laws of physics and chemicals and stuff" "The fact the universe is unnecessary is disproved by the fact lots of things in it are unnecessary" What..? "Goal is survival and survival determines good and bad because survival is somehow objectively better than dying because..." Wait, survival is what makes things good or bad because survival is good? Tautology bro.
worldofdraculas 2 months ago
Thomas Aquinas is a hypocrite. He stated that if nothing can create itself there must be one uncreated creator. If nothing can create itself, than there is no uncreated creator! He just saaid that one sentence ago! The fact of the matter is, that the only "uncreated creator" is nature itself, but since it is not a tangable thing, but rather an omnipresent force. If you want to really bridge the (infinite) gap between faith and reason, just say that nature is God, not God created nature.
cheddercheese99 3 months ago
@cheddercheese99 "But who made God?!" is a silly argument coming from someone who claims things can exist without causes. Clearly something had to violate causality somehow. You're just a materialist so you believe it MUST have been a materialistic cause. How exactly is automatically assuming something scientific just because it's materialistic?
worldofdraculas 2 months ago
if god existed he was created by the fact that bact then there were no laws of physics to say that he cannot..... hence he had a certain % quantum state of existing..... in this quantum universe he did and accidentily created the laws of physics.... so god is an accident of the cosmos... making us an even bigger accident.
doombybbr 3 months ago
I really like your videos man, but the proofs given by Aquinas are A POSTERIORI, and that's an important point! The ontological proof given by Aselm is today perhaps the most famous A PRIORI argument of God's existance, which, plainly speaking, means that it is a proof based on reasoning alone, as you say. However, AQUINAS' proofs are based on observational data from which he discerns the 'effects' of God - so they are A POSTERIORI arguments, grounded in empirical data.
This is actually crucial!
jenslyn87 3 months ago
@jenslyn87 This video is stupidly biased and ignorant anyway.
Which rational arguments did atheists use in St. Aquinas's time? Spontaneous generation? An eternal universe?
And Aquinas did not say "well, you just have to trust God [about the trinity]." He said, essentially, that it was something that could not be reached with reason alone. It's like saying m-theory can't be proven because we don't have particle accelerators the size of the universe. And note, he still philosophized about it.
worldofdraculas 2 months ago
@jenslyn87
Either way it's silly and internally contradictory conjecture. Does it really matter what you call it? It's just religious rhetoric one way or another.
Ryakki 2 months ago
@Ryakki
Well I think it's important to realize that Aquinas did away with the idea that God's existence could be proven by rationalist contemplation alone, but required the study and inferences built on empirical observations. That's quite a philosophical schism exemplified.
What do you think is internally contradictory in the arguments proposed by Aquinas?
jenslyn87 2 months ago
@jenslyn87
His whole argument is based on everything needing a cause. The problem that brings up, of course, is infinite regression.
So he then posits that there must be some all-powerful being that intristicly violates the very foundation of his own argument, using special pleading to try and make it ok, that is a random bandaid fix for infinite regression.
It boggles my mind.
Ryakki 2 months ago
@Ryakki I have to agree with you that he seems to reach conclusions that do not necessarily follow from his premises, and that he very conveniently posits God as the only thinkable solution to the regression problem.
However, I do not think it's internally contradictory. God is conceptualized as an 'unmoved mover' (Aristotle), and again, that is convenient, but to be internally contradictory I would maintain that his argument would have collapse into absurdity, which I don't see.
jenslyn87 2 months ago
@jenslyn87
Well, we'll have to agree to disagree on that one. Because it seems completely absurd to me.
He just sets up special conditions that exempt the unmoved mover from causality, without any explanation or justification. You take them away and the argument just devours itself.
Not to mention, the universe and deep time, even now, is far beyond our complete understanding... this argument makes some major assumptions that I don't feel it has any right to make in the first place.
Ryakki 2 months ago
@Ryakki
"His whole argument is based on everything needing a cause." Maybe the reason why it "boggles" your mind is because you haven't read Aquinas or Aristotle. Aquinas never stated that everything has a cause, so that basically refutes all your criticisms as strawman arguments from the get go.
UncannyRicardo 2 months ago
@UncannyRicardo
For infinite regression to be an issue... you know what, no, this one is too obvious, I'm not explaining this to you.
Ryakki 2 months ago
@Ryakki
It's ok, I dont expect one. I was just pointing out errors in your understanding of Aquinas.
UncannyRicardo 2 months ago
But that in no way indicates that "everyone who ever drove passed the sign has missed seeing it." Many, many people in the world have strong intellectual reasons for believing in a deity. I'd love to explain them, but this discussion has already gotten too long, and 500 characters is nowhere near enough space to explain them. However, if you are interested in pursuing Truth, you can do some of your own research. I am quite sure you will find some rational explanations of a theistic worldview.
Rhuarc121 3 months ago
You all seem to be missing the point entirely. Just look back at the last three comments again. All three of you assume that empirical, physical evidence is the only evidence that counts. We call that a naturalistic worldview, which is a presupposition that cannot be proven and must simply be assumed. All of you are making this assumption, mainly because it is the societally-popular thing to do. The signs I was referring to are intellectual, not physical. You cannot photograph a thought.
Rhuarc121 3 months ago
@HarryTruthman
...This leaves a person with some options. 1) He/she can maintain that only natural things exist, and perhaps we will find some reason in the future as to why the physical constants of the universe are fine-tuned. 2) He/she can form a theory why the physical constants are fine-tuned (such as the existence of a multi-verse, for which there is no evidence at all). 3) He/she can adopt different fundamental assumptions about the world, such as allowing for the existence of the divine
Rhuarc121 3 months ago
@HarryTruthman
Energy is something that falls under the "material aspects of the world." Here is an example of what I mean, from something that atheist scientists say themselves. The physical constants of the universe appear to be fine-tuned to allow the existence of the universe in general, and of life in particular. They say that there is no physical reason why these physical constants should be fine-tuned like this. Yet, the fact remains that the physical constants are in fact fine-tuned...
Rhuarc121 3 months ago
The fact of the matter is that no actual scientific facts are incompatible with a theistic, or Christian, worldview. Only scientific theories are incompatible with a Christian worldview. And this is completely un-surprising, because many scientific theories begin, as just mentioned, with the assumption that supernatural phenomena are not possible. Whereas a Christian worldview begins with the assumption that supernatural things are possible. Theism is at odds with naturalism, not with science.
Rhuarc121 3 months ago 12
@Rhuarc121
Theories are observations of facts, that have been heavily tested and peer reviewed. They are far above facts, in the scientific world. They are equal to laws in their accuracy and predictive power.
To science, everything is natural. The universe is how it appears to be. If there was suddenly sufficient emperical evidence that a twelve legged spider named Suzie had created the universe, Suzie would be natural, and scientists would work to understand her apparently vast powers.
Ryakki 2 months ago
@Ryakki
"Theories are observations of facts, that have been heavily tested and peer reviewed. They are far above facts, in the scientific world. They are equal to laws in their accuracy and predictive power."
Scientific facts are irrefutable truths. Example of a fact: objects that have mass fall toward Earth when they are sufficiently close to it.
Example of a theory: This happens because of a warping in the fabric of space time.
Theories try to explain "why" and thus can always be wrong.
Rhuarc121 2 months ago
@Rhuarc121
In organisms with short generational gaps, evolution can be directly observed. Speciation has been observed. The genetic evidence is monumental. The "living organisms change over time and create new species in the process" part is the fact.
The theory is evolution through natural selection.
In the incredibly rare case where a theory is incorrect... how exactly would it help creationists or somehow create evidence for the supernatural?
Ryakki 2 months ago
@Ryakki Many argue that faith doesn't have a right to stand next to science since due to evidence. But what scientific theories are you referring to? And how much do you really know about them? One of the most prominent scientific figures of natural law is the parallel universe theory. This one explains the big bang and how it was possible. It states: There is a good universe; therefore there must be bad ones. That is how matter was created. That's not evidence. That is forced reasoning.
roxas1296 2 months ago
@roxas1296
Matter was created because there are bad universes? What?
I'd suggest looking up some science-based videos on string theory and multiverses and "the bulk".
Better understanding is a good place to start.
Ryakki 2 months ago
@Ryakki I was refering to an article published in a scientific newsletter. It was the "modern theory of the day." It stated that in order for matter to exist, the particles that made up the early universe would have to collide with other parts of matter. It also stated that if our universe was created by a natural process, it would follow the rules of probability. Therefore, since our universe is a good outcome, there are bad ones. And that is where the matter came from that made the universe.
roxas1296 2 months ago
@Ryakki And if it sounds stupid, that is because it is. Several scientists who have won the Nobel Prize have refuted their beliefs that the world is mechanistic. Based on new research, such as the "God Particle" and the layers of fossils that DON'T support the gradual natural seleciton theory, these scientists now believe that although science in itself is true, it should be viewed as a process of thought, not as a machine with universal outcomes. Hence where faith comes in.
roxas1296 2 months ago
@Ryakki
I went searching for your "monumental genetic evidence" that speciation has been observed in bacteria. I found one actual scientific study. In this study, e. coli bacteria went through 30,000 generations of not being able to metabolize citrate, until one group showed evidence of "developing" this ability. This is interesting, but one study does not a law make. Also, it is possible that the ability to metabolize citrate is a genetic trait of all e. coli that just happens to be very rare.
Rhuarc121 2 months ago
@Rhuarc121
Looking back at what I wrote I see what I wrote was confusing.
The comments were separate.
We can directly observe evolution in oranisms with short generational gaps... also, we have observed speciation events several times in various organisms... and, the genetic evidence spanning all life on earth is monumentally demonstrative of evolution.
There, that seems better.
Ryakki 2 months ago
oh my god Ryakki get off this fucking video. You're annoying as hell do you have anything else to do besides bash everyone else's opinions?
kristenmains 3 months ago
Aquinas was one line of reasoning away from being John Calvin. Though, he was smart enough to never actually WRITE IT DOWN, since that would have landed him on the fire. It's how it goes when you apply logics to Christianity -- you'll end up with determinism.
bongolongo 3 months ago
@bongolongo why would claiming "determinism" was true get him killed by the church?
255ad 3 months ago
@255ad Because its incompatible with free will, and then there'd be no such thing as salvation. Calvinism is a heresy according to the RCC, and had Aquinas both embraced Aristotle and committed heresy, he'd likely been a Torch for Christ.
bongolongo 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bongolongo You don't know what you're talking about.
cheddarsandwich 3 months ago
die hard might be better then bacon and koalas, but its not better then koala bacon
stoogemaster7000 3 months ago 8
And having not been a pedophile, lol.
drew335533 3 months ago
Great series - but it's not a Catholic belief that Aristotle would be in hell (just to point out)
cheddarsandwich 3 months ago 6
actually, in Aquins' times it was.
kristenmains 3 months ago
@kristenmains I don't think so - can you provide some evidence? thanks
cheddarsandwich 3 months ago
@cheddarsandwich Apparently he would have been in Hell (along with a whole bunch of people the Church loves) until Jesus died and descended, saved them and took them to heaven...
GraceMartini 3 months ago
@GraceMartini so he was in hell..... but only for 360 years?
255ad 3 months ago
@255ad Ain't the Bible just a nifty thing? :P
GraceMartini 3 months ago
@GraceMartini what?
255ad 3 months ago
@255ad No not really... no true time scale in the infinite. And not hell as we imagine it now, a place for sinners, but just an intermediate 'awaiting' state like purgatory. For 'where is he then'? the answer from the Church would be that no man can know the fate of another's soul, but there's no reason from Aristotle's profile to say that he wouldn't have attained heaven.
cheddarsandwich 3 months ago
@cheddarsandwich
"no true time scale in the infinite" what?
255ad 3 months ago
@cheddarsandwich why not? where is he then?
255ad 3 months ago
I looked in the comments, expecting an ongoing shit storm, where people would be attempting to trample over each others egos and/or stroking their own.
Big fucking surprise.
TheManLocked 4 months ago
@TheManLocked Haha can't explain that.
Pinoylegend707 4 months ago
Comment removed
Ryakki 4 months ago
Comment removed
Ryakki 4 months ago
@PrissT2040
Atheists believe in everything, we believe in the entire universe in all its' majesty. You believe in a narrow superstitious worldview that prevents you from exploring and investigating the world and seeing all its' true majesty. The bible is TINY, it's beyond tiny, the entire scope of it is the most mundane bronze age view of reality with some magic sprinkled in.
Regardless, Aquinas' goal on this argument was to replace faith with logic. I'll judge it as a logical proof.
Ryakki 4 months ago
@Ryakki "that prevents you from exploring and investigating the world and seeing all its' true majesty"
OMG! How did I miss this?! I LOVE this claim from atheists! It's one of my favorite ad homs because its so easily disproven.
First of all, you have no way of seeing into the heads of religious people, so you're overextending your reach. This is as purient as religious people claiming you're just an atheist because you feel guilty about sin...
CoryTheRaven 4 months ago
@CoryTheRaven
Like most in the US I was raised christian. I believed it because... well, it's what mom tells ya. I guess I started to doubt early... my mom remembers me mentioning serious doubts as we were on our way to church when I was 5 years old, lol... but I did believe. Church twice a week, church camp in the summer. I understand the point of view because I lived it. As have most atheists.
It's an assertion of understanding... not ignorance. It's a very narrow limiting world view.
Ryakki 4 months ago
@Ryakki Which of the 38,000 some denominations of Christianity were you raised in? Given that you have the misfortune of being American, I am going to guess that there is a strongly likelihood of it being a more conservative branch, which would have certainly skewed your perspective. Therein lies the problem: this is an anecdote. It is not evidence. Show me a properly conducted survey proving that NO Christian has a scientific education or disposition towards peak experience in nature.
CoryTheRaven 4 months ago
@CoryTheRaven
It wasn't terribly conservative, but I still found it unbelievable and at odds with science and logic pretty early on.
I'm just explaining that I do understand the religious point of view... well... kind of... it's like understanding a kids point of view, yes you were a kid once, but the way you view the world now is SO fundamentally different that sometimes it's hard to remember, or have empathy on a DEEP level.
And there are religious scientists... like deaf musicians, lol.
Ryakki 4 months ago
@Ryakki No lols about it. There are religious scientists. Period. Full stop. If you are not religious or a scientist, then you have no opinion on the subject. You need merely to sit down and shut up.
The funny thing about X-Xtians is that it's pretty easy to narrow down what denomination they were before. You just have to assess what their Ultimate Proof Against All Religion For All Time is. It is almost invariably nothing more than a critique of the religion they happened to grow up in...
CoryTheRaven 4 months ago
@Ryakki ... That is also the deepest faults of those critiques. You mentioned kids: with nearly equal invariability, those criticisms are directed a children's level of understanding. They make childish arguments against the childish religion they stopped thinking about at 5 or 10 or 15. Then they accuse religious people of sharing these childish beliefs because, hey, you guys were raised in it and totally understand it on a deep, insightful, grown-up level, right?...
CoryTheRaven 4 months ago
@Ryakki ...You, for example, have shown no real, mature undestanding of not only Aquinas' argument, nor the minds of religious ADULTS, but even the terms and context of the argument. You're still confusing rationalism and empiricism, and using thought-terminating, straw man cliches to describe religion. And then you've tried to tell us how you know how we think because of irrational feelings you had as a KID. Go ahead, pull the other one junior.
CoryTheRaven 4 months ago
@CoryTheRaven
I had a love from the time I was young for learning, for science, for reason, for the way the world really worked. That was directly at odds with with, as I researched, the more and more obviously untrue stories in the bible, and mostly, the fact that there were 10,000 human gods, each of whose followers made the same claims of exclusive correctness without empirical evidence, and thought the other 9,999 were utterly ridiculous and horrifically wrong.
It was silly, and untrue.
Ryakki 4 months ago
@Ryakki
That's not a childish understanding of something, that's looking into something and questioning it, reaching a frighteningly obvious, if just plain frightening (an afterlife and a sky daddy are very comforting, real death is cold, impersonal, scary as hell, and not something you accept because you WANT it to be true) conclusion, and committing yourself to the truth, rather than what's easy.
A lot of people can't do that.
Don't hate me for taking the path of intellectual honesty.
Ryakki 4 months ago
@Ryakki @Ryakki Hey neat, I like science too! In fact, I teach science in my job and I volunteer with local science organizations in my spare time. I'm also religious. But love for science isn't really at issue. At issue was your childish understanding of religion, complete with your juvenile straw men (oh yes, the EASY route) and self-aggrandizing (oh yes, you're SO much more intellectually honest for making logically fallicious arguments about things you're willfully ignorant about)...
CoryTheRaven 4 months ago
@Ryakki ... FYI, being atheist doesn't automatically give you smart points. It doesn't automatically make you more rational or more scientific or more honest. It just makes you an atheist. Smart is as smart does, and as smart thinks, and as smart says. Straw man arguments, false dilemmas, appeals to ridicule, bad faith arguments and ad homs are not tools that intelligent, thoughtful, and informed people use.
CoryTheRaven 4 months ago
@CoryTheRaven
Committing myself to truth over what feels nice, science over superstition, intellectual honesty over comfortable group think... I think that gives me tons of "smart points", honestly.
Religion is willful, voluntary ignorance of reality. That's not an insult, that's just the fact of the matter... and I take away a lot of "smart points" for that.
Scientists who are religious are a walking oxymoron, I have to assume they fully compartmentalize, or are massively conflicted.
Ryakki 4 months ago
@Ryakki And this is exactly why you've stopped being a kid but you haven't actually grown up. To you it's a contest. No wonder you resort to nothing more than insults and cliches, because it's actually not about seeking truth and honesty. It's about SAYING you're seeking truth and honesty so you can THINK you're better than everyone else. Instead of trying to understand even the things you disagree with, you just stamp your feet and whine that it's an "oxymoron" or they're just plain "morons"...
CoryTheRaven 4 months ago
@Ryakki ... In short, you're doing the EXACT SAME THING that so many people, rightly, criticize jerkass fundamentalist Christians of doing. You're ignorantly using other people as stepping stones to feel righteous about yourself. Grow up.
CoryTheRaven 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Ryakki: If you're at all interested in serious discussion with smart guys who disagree with you, you should check out Edward Feser's blog: edwardfeser.blogspot.com
Fair warning: prepare for high-octane intellectual combat.
vinteui1 4 months ago
Comment removed
vinteui1 4 months ago
@vinteui1
Religion and science are opposite ways of looking at the world. I feel a scientific world view is a key to true intelligence, methodically and rationally examining and understanding reality. Religion is forcing the facts to fit unfounded, silly, ancient dogma or ignoring facts when they don't fit the dogma to your satisfaction... and individually, it fits every criteria for mental illness.
People who can combine the two some how... confuse me, to say the least.
Ryakki 4 months ago
@Ryakki Religion and science are opposite ways of looking at the world.
that is so completely untrue it is almost painful. Congrats you've ignored thousands of years of philosophy and study to form a completely stupid and false opinion; thank you for wasting the wrold's time
alternativebassist 3 months ago
@alternativebassist
Science is figuring out reality by careful study of the facts. With an open mind, letting the facts tell the story of reality.
Religion is trying to make the facts fit religious dogma. Already having the conclusion, and no matter how wrong it looks at any point, cherry picking and altering facts to support the conclusion.
If those aren't fantastically opposite ways of looking at the world... then I just don't know.
Ryakki 3 months ago
@Ryakki wow you really are as stupid as you look. Ignoring the fact that you clearly don't know the first thing at all about philosophy OR religion (which your statements have just proved completely) you then go and post this on a video that is about Thomas Aquinas; a man who not only tried to study religion scientifically but influenced many others to do so and succeed. Seeing as this fact was mentioned IN THE FUCKING VIDEO you should think about opening a book. If ignorance was bliss...
alternativebassist 3 months ago
@alternativebassist
No, he did not try to study religion scientifically. Science is rational and logical examination of evidence through experimentation or at the least math.
What he tried to do is prove god philosophically through logic and reason without evidence.
And he failed, fantastically. He used the religious style of trying to make the facts fit the conclusion, and ended up with what amounts to a simple argument from ignorance with no significance.
Ryakki 3 months ago
@Ryakki fucking hell...are you really that stupid? Well yes. So despite the fact that the video says it itself and is also correct you obviously no more about the subject? LOL
tell me are people like you born this way or does it take training? So the 5 ways are not logical? Explain how their ideas do not equate to science...how is the second way not scientific? Or the Via Negativa not a logical approach?
alternativebassist 3 months ago
Comment removed
alternativebassist 3 months ago
@Ryakki he never made the facts fit the conclusion; that was in one of the biggest things about Aquinas; all five of the quinquae viae use evidence and logic. Why are people like you so stupid about this? Open your mind! Actually learn something about the things you are ignorantly making ranting hate speeches about! I genuinely don't understand, your entire argument is destroyed in this video and yet you just don't see it...its ridiculous!
alternativebassist 3 months ago
@alternativebassist He imagined something, then made an irrational leap to god. Then said it was the christian god with no apparent basis in fact or reality.
None of this impresses a rational thinker.
Logic and reason is not hate speech.
Ryakki 3 months ago
@Ryakki "he imagined something" just what was it he imagined? That everything has a cause? Oh yeah living in a fantasy world there! That language inhibits our descriptive process? Because no-one else has thought of that one! LOL. Or that there was a prime mover? Yep its not like Aristotle or Ibn Saina had the same idea =)
ok what is stopping you from watching the video? The whole problem with Aquinas is that he found issue with the Christian God because it wasn't able to fit his logic perfectly
alternativebassist 3 months ago