suma theologica

[ashdod_mogger]

is any of it still relevant for todays age? Why are people still using these arguments on discord debate's till this age. Btw Kant had already debunked it all one by one like in the late 18s century on his magnum opus "critique if pure reason" JFL
@Ghost Philosophy
@_MVP_
@vanillaicecream

 

[ashdod_mogger]

Tagging Christian bros @PrinceLuenLeoncur @HarrierDuBois

 

[topology]

No one here cares to educate morons. Try reddit, it may suit you better.

 

[ashdod_mogger]

Got banned from stips .co.il so no mador/ room to talk about philosophy for me

 

[ashdod_mogger]

No one here cares to educate morons. Try reddit, it may suit you better.

I prefer this site over Reddit. Though the absolute state of this forum is...

 

[ashdod_mogger]

okay, youre right

No one here cares to educate morons. Try reddit, it may suit you better.

 

[ashdod_mogger]

tbh ngl ts forum descended hard

 

[topology]

currently iam sugar maxxing with cooked eggs (omelette)+ honey and silan btw

Didn't need to know that.

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

is any of it still relevant for todays age? Why are people still using these arguments on discord debate's till this age. Btw Kant had already debunked it all one by one like in the late 18s century on his magnum opus "critique if pure reason" JFL
@Ghost Philosophy
@_MVP_
@vanillaicecream

Well it’s relevant for Roman Catholics as most are Thomists and according to the Pope this is considered the uniform Theologial philosophy of the church

Thus other Christian’s and non Christian’s debate Roman Catholics on the errors of it. It’s really that simple.

Jay dyer has already ripped it a new one

 

[ashdod_mogger]

Well it’s relevant for Roman Catholics as most are Thomists and according to the Pope this is considered the uniform Theologial philosophy of the church

Thus other Christian’s and non Christian’s debate Roman Catholics on the errors of it. It’s really that simple.

Jay dyer has already ripped it a new one

îåøä ðáåëéí

books.google.co.il

Moreh ha'nevokhim is a must read for theologicans btw (ramabam was an influencer of thomas' philosophy )

 

[ashdod_mogger]

is any of it still relevant for todays age? Why are people still using these arguments on discord debate's till this age. Btw Kant had already debunked it all one by one like in the late 18s century on his magnum opus "critique if pure reason" JFL
@Ghost Philosophy
@_MVP_
@vanillaicecream

So to be fair with you I didn't read any script by Thomas Aquinas

but I do know there are five arguments in question, and kant went over them all and refuted it . Kant showed that might as well could be reduced into three arguments (by this order- ontological, cosmological and physico-theological aka theleological)




for the sake of the argument i will try to copy (using an ai) some of what's written in the relevant part of the books into this thread,translated so can go a little bit wrong..
(second unit / the transcendental dialectic / the ideal of pure reason [on the impossibly of ontological, cosmological and physicotheological proofs to the existence of God, sub-section 4,5and6 respectively]):

(§4 — On the Impossibility of Ontological Vision
Reason, when it transcends the limits of possible experience, strives to posit for itself a concept of a being that is completely complete, from which nothing of the possible completenesses would be lacking. From this concept it seeks to deduce, as it were, the very reality of that being.
However, a subtle but crucial distinction must be made between the concept of a thing and its existence. For existence is not a real title that adds anything to the concept of any object. When I think of a hundred possible currencies, their concept lacks nothing in relation to a hundred real currencies; the difference is not in the concept, but in reality.
The claim, therefore, that a supreme being necessarily also includes the title of existence is nothing but a logical illusion, arising from the tendency to see existence as an attribute. But existence is not the determination of a concept, but the positing of the thing itself. Hence, any attempt to derive the reality of an object from the concept alone is invalid.
Therefore, the ontological view fails, since it seeks to derive reality from thinking alone, which is not possible for human reason.
§5 — On the impossibility of the cosmological view
The cosmological view begins from the given of experience: there are things in the world, and they are perceived as conditioned and dependent. From this reason concludes that it is necessary to posit one entity that is not conditioned — a necessary entity, in which the chain of dependence will be stopped.
However, reason here falls into a double illusion.
First, the concept of causality, on which the view rests, is valid only within the framework of experience. We are not allowed to apply it beyond the world of phenomena to what is outside it. Every cause that we know is a cause within time, within the world of the senses; therefore, applying it to an entity that is supposed to be beyond all experience is an illegitimate use of the category.
Secondly, when the evidence seeks to determine the nature of that necessary being, it is forced to rely on the same assumption that was presented in the ontological evidence—namely, that existence is included in the concept of a perfect being. It is found that the cosmological evidence does not stand on its own, but is secretly based on the ontological evidence, which has already been proven invalid.
Therefore, the cosmological evidence cannot prove the existence of a necessary being either, but only expresses the aspiration of reason for a complete unity of conditions.
§6 — On the impossibility of the physico-theological evidence
The physico-theological evidence proceeds from the order, harmony, and purposiveness evident in the world. From this observation it concludes that there must be a supreme intelligence that has shaped the world in accordance with purposiveness.
Of the three evidences, this is the closest to common sense, and it even arouses deep astonishment in the face of the order in nature. However, here too, the limits of the conclusion must be clearly discerned.
For, from the order in experience, one can at most deduce the existence of a rational being—a kind of architect of the world—but not of a creator in the absolute sense. Furthermore, this view is not sufficient to prove the infinity or necessity of this being.
In order to arrive at the concept of a necessary and perfect being, the physico-theological view is forced to pass to the cosmological view, and from there to the ontological view. It is found that it too ultimately depends on the same fundamental error.
Therefore, this view is not sufficient to prove the existence of God in the metaphysical sense, but only to indicate a certain correspondence between the orders of nature and the idea of rationality.
General conclusion
From all of the above, it follows that pure reason, when it seeks to decide the existence of a supreme being by means of concepts alone, inevitably falls into contradictions and illusions. The idea of God is not knowledge but an idea—a guiding principle, the function of which is to unify the use of reason, but not to posit an object of cognition.
However, this does not negate the value of this idea, but only to determine its proper place: not in the realm of theoretical knowledge, but in another realm, where reason may find a different justification for it.


P.S i don't have enough time to read that much pages any time soon so won't elab, just went through what's needed the most

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

îåøä ðáåëéí

books.google.co.il

Moreh ha'nevokhim is a must read for theologicans btw (ramabam was an influencer of thomas' philosophy )

You mean “ramban”

Yes them Jewish philosophies are heavily Shia, Mutazilite and Roman Catholic influenced but many also don’t know they have many Gnostic influences with the Seriphot the En Soph of Kabbalah so yeah it’s wacky shit them Jews be crazy