>Blind faith is considered philosophy
I'd always suspected that philosophy was bullshit, but after watching Pewds' most recent book review, I'm certain of it.
I don't usually come to Yea Forums, just thought I'd drop by and tell y'all you're pathetic fartsniffers circlejerking over incredibly shallow ideas (INCREDIBLY shallow--not even a child would buy this guy's philosophy).
Other urls found in this thread:
dhspriory.org
twitter.com
kewl
Not being rude to Christians or anyone else, but honestly, instead of torturing yourself over whether or not God exists, you might find greater contentment in simply achieving inner peace through meditation and spiritual philosophies that focus on individual enlightenment. You can still believe in God, but please don't torture yourselves over the existence of a Being you cannot verify for yourself. Have faith in one if you believe in such, but don't go down the road Kierk did...
Extremely weak bait
Slightly better but still garbage
Guess we're in for another thread of people calling OP bait while being unable to refute him.
I'll bite enough to tell you no argument was ever made
The argument was that Kierkegaard's philosophy amounts to blind faith, which is a shallow philosophy.
That it's not an argument, retard
It is, and you're being intellecctually dishonest.
We don't believe in God because we want him to exist. We believe in God because we're convinced that it's true. Christianity is not wish-fulfilment, and "inner peace" is the biggest cope in the world. If you aren't charged with duty as in Christianity, why live?
Feser’s Reformulation of the Aristotelian Proof for God:
1. Change is a real future of the world.
2. Change is the actualization of a potential.
3. So, the actualization of a potential is a real feature of the world.
4. No potential can be actualized unless something already actual actualizes it (the principle of causality).
5. So, any change is caused by something already actual.
6. The occurrence of any change, C, presupposes some thing or substance, S, which changes.
7. The existence of S at any given moment itself presupposes the concurrent (simultaneous) actualization of S’s potential existence.
8. So, any substance, S, has a t any moment some actualizer of its existence, called A.
*Aside: Why S cannot be its own actualizer: Suppose S actualizes S. So, S is actual and changes S in potentiality to S in actuality. But If S is actual how was it ever potential? If S is potential, how could it change itself if there is no actuality to change it first?
>pic related
9. A’s own existence—at every exact moment it actualizes S—itself presupposes either:
(a) the concurrent actualization of its own potential for existence or (b) A’s [existence] being purely actual.
*Aside: Things are either a mix of potentiality and actuality, pure potentiality, or pure actuality.
10. If A’s own existence—at every exact moment it actualizes S—presupposes the concurrent actualization of its own potential for existence, then there exists a regress of concurrent actualizers that is either infinite or terminates in a purely actual actualizer.
11. Such a regress of concurrent (simultaneous) actualizers would constitute a hierarchical causal series, and such a series cannot regress infinitely.
*Aside: For a hierarchical causal series, imagine a flowerpot being held in midair by a chainlink, being held up by another, etc., being all held up by a loophook in the ceiling. W/o the hook, the flowerpot couldn't be held up. For it to hang, you need a 1st loophook, not ∞ chainlinks.
>pic related
12. So, either A itself is a purely actual actualizer or there is a purely actual actualizer which terminates the regress that begins with the actualization of A.
13. So, the occurrence of C (change) and thus the existence of S at any given moment presupposes the existence of a purely actual actualizer.
14. So, there exists a purely actualized actualizer.
QED
>On “Multiple Purely Actual Actualizers”:
15. In order for there to be more than one purely actual actualizer, there would have to be some differentiating feature that one such actualizer has that the others lack.
16. But, there could be such a differentiating feature only if a purely actual actualizer had some unactualized potential, which, being purely actual, it does not have.
17. So, there can be no such differentiating feature, and thus no way for there to be more than one purely actualized actualizer.
18. So, there is only one purely actual actualizer.
QED
>On the Purely Actual Actualizer Being Perfect:
19. If the purely actual actualizer were imperfect in any way, it would have some unactualized potential, which, being purely actual, it does not have.
20. So, the purely actual actualizer is perfect.
QED
Well Kierk clearly didn't feel as you described, and that's the kind of person I was addressing.
>On the Purely Actual Actualizer Being Good:
21. For something to be less than fully good is for it to have a privation—that is, to fail to actualize some feature proper to it.
*Aside : A broken leg is less than full good for it fails to actualize standing/walking/running, features proper to a leg, being imperfect. A man is less than full good if he fails to actualize virtuosity; this is a privation of virtue, being imperfect.
22. A purely actualizer, being purely actual, can have no such privation.
23. So, the purely actual actualizer is fully good.
QED
*Aside pt.1: Goodness is that which we desire. Something is desirable if and only if it is perfect (refer to prev. aside). Some thing is perfect if and only if it is actual. A thing is perfect if and only if it exists in whichever respect (the opposite of a privation of being).
*Aside pt.2: More on how goodness is synonymous with being: dhspriory.org
24. So, a good thing is the same as a desirable thing which is the same as a perfect thing which is the same as a thing in act/ a thing that exists (not a privation of existence).
25. So, if God is pure actuality, then He is goodness itself.
26. God is pure actuality. Therefore, God is goodness itself.
QED
>Actual actualizer who art in heaven, hallowed be thy actualizing
>Thy actuality come, thy actualization be done in earth as it is in heaven
>Give us this day our daily actualizing
>And forgive us our unactualized potential as we forgive the unactualized potential of others
>And lead us not into less actualization but deliver us from potential
>Amen
Go take your useless queer scholasticism somewhere else
Literally God's work but wasted on this thread
>being this deficient in the Divine Names
pitiful...
Thanks, but the waste comes from those who do not take it to heart. It's easily distributable, as well.
Aristotle was BTFO by Kant on this point you know
Nobody on this board is sincerely Christian. They are all kids ironically larping as Christians. They think they hilarious and innovative when this shit has been stale for a decade. I guess the (you)s are just too addictive for them
Let's hear it
Kant never BTFO anyone of significance. Reminder that Kant badly misread Aquinas.
Kierk is still better than this kind of garbage.
The biggest issue with religion today is that it fails to inspire not any problems with science or philosophy.
Well, that's what happens when you're a brainlet reductionist who has his philosophy rooted in reductionism and epistemological desert, ie) DESCARTES
@kant
Cringey and infantile logic
You've conveniently forgot every step leading up to that conclusion. What you are doing is no better than saying "ted kazynski's ideas are wrong because he thinks technology is bad, and technology is not bad because it helps some people". Though of course you are baiting so thank god for that.
I would love to see how Kant denied casualty. Oh wait, he didn't.
Um sweetie... causality is just a product of human intuitions of space and time by which sense-objects become objects of experience and thus is an a priori true principle for any object of experience but not for things in themselves, okay?
Read him and find out for yourself. The knight of faith isn’t the only thing he talks about in the book; all existentialist heroes (like Don Giovanni or whoever your favorite anime/vidja character is) would align with Kierkegaard’s analysis of the Knight of Infinite Resignation.
In the book he describes the short-comings of the latter, and how faith fills in the gap.
As a last argument, you have faith that the universe has a consistent order we can learn through observation don’t you? That’s also a form of faith user.
No one has been sincerely Christian since the 1600s. The only thing special about our time is the internets.
your epistemology is pathetic
Your proof of God is pathetic, and I say that as a Christfag
>torture
lmao wtf nigga faith is my strength in life, I unironically don't have the fortitude to be an atheist
His philosophy explains the value of faith
Explain what is wrong with the argument
This sounds like well-grounded ontology but this is actually modal-logic in disguise.
>a Being you cannot verify for yourself.
>he cannot feel God in every breath
>talking about spiritual enlightenment
Heh, pleb
bahahahahahahaha
fuck off you cunt
You could have just quoted Boethius and said much more without touching any of that banalytic dreck.
>you cannot verify for yourself.
But you can.
Contrary to what? Empiricism?
You and OP buy into a bunch of philosophical ideas that you have never considered needing to be justified and have simply been taught or otherwise inherited.
Such as? This also isn't an argument, it's just "NO U".
>this isn't an argument, it's just "no u"
Here's one
>having this high-school understanding of god
what happened, lit?
Please explain yourself instead of being a snarky brainlet.
Well look, just think about what you consider evidence and argument, and think about why you think that. But you could go on doing this, and eventually you would either have something unjustified or an infinite regress. This is foundationalism, as opposed to something like coherentism.
FOR THE LAST TIME, I WAS TALKING ABOUT KIERKEGAARD AND PEOPLE IN HIS BOAT, IF THAT'S NOT YOU THEN CONGRATULATIONS
I kind of mixed up epistemology in here, which isn't really necessary and is sort of a tangential point.
calm down you absolute cringe factory
Thats literally not Kiekegaard's philosophy at all though. He argues against blind faith, and if you knew the slightest about him you would know that. That's why we aren't taking this thread seriously, because either its bait, or OP is a massive brainlet that doesn't know the first thing about Kierk
The leap of faith is about any decision really. Including the girls you chase, you can't know if she's good, maybe she will ruin you in 10 years, but you need to make a decision and stick to it at one point and take some chances.
The only cringe factory are the Christians in this thread responding to me with both illiteracy and autism, not only not reading my post properly but also telling me how "acshully, you CAN prove God's existence, sir" and other remarks that make non-Christians automatically depart from wherever we find you. It comes across as insecurity on your parts, if you're truly confident there's a Deity (and that it's not the one in the Quran or anything but only from your Bible, first written 2000 years ago), then please don't try and justify it to others and leave such wonderful posts here like the above "actualizing actualizers actually actualizing" goldmine of a "proof". Just please keep your faith and your "proofs" where they belong - in yourself. I'm being kind, and my earlier comment was out of kindness too, so please don't show me anymore of that Christian """"Love"""" that you love to spread to the rest of the world, reminding us how truly open-minded, empathetic and mature your faith has made you compared to us backwards non-Christians.
I mean you're right
Blind faith is not a philosophy it's literally the only way to live
You're just doing it without realizing
>11. Such a regress of concurrent (simultaneous) actualizers would constitute a hierarchical causal series, and such a series cannot regress infinitely.
>*Aside: For a hierarchical causal series, imagine a flowerpot being held in midair by a chainlink, being held up by another, etc., being all held up by a loophook in the ceiling. W/o the hook, the flowerpot couldn't be held up. For it to hang, you need a 1st loophook, not ∞ chainlinks.
If there is an infinite chain of flower pots it shouldn't necessarily be need to tethered to something to not fall. The end cannot be observed. The structure should hold up simply based upon the fact that there's always one more flowerpot to hold it up ad infinitum.
This refutes the entire argument.
nigga what
>Here's the scenario:
You're outside and it's a very foggy day. All you can see is a part of the ground, a flowerpot, air between the ground and flowerpot, and say maybe 5 chain links. Just assume that you could somehow have an infinite number of chain links (not assuming that it can or cannot hold something up, but that you could have that quantity in real life).
>What is going to hold up the flowerpot?
An infinite series of chain links regressing in height
or
a series of chain links that stops at a hook in the ceiling?
Would you agree that three chain links alone could not hold up the flowerpot?
10?
9000?
Induction tells us that any case of x-amount of chain links alone could not hold up the flowerpot.
You need an actualizer that gives casual power to each subsequent actualizer—which is not dependent upon anything for its own casual power—, without which, no actualized actualizer could have casual power or the power to change something.