Epicurus: The senses do not deceive, the mind does

this, if any one of them is right, how can we know the other isn't?

>I can imagine a perfect being therefore it exists
Aquinas btfo’d this argument hundreds of years before. Just because the form of something can be imagined, does not mean it exists or can exist. A unicorn, phoenix, leviathan, or whatever it is, is all product of human faculty. What human faculty cannot comprehend, however, is the form of God. This is because he takes no specific form; all form comes from him. God is Being in itself.
aquinasonline.com/Topics/deente4.html

But the problem is that an "absolute perfection" can't be imagined, at least, according to the method Descartes provides in Meditations. He says, "existence is a perfection." But, of what? Anything that is perfected, has to have been perfected of, through, or by, something else. So what is perfected, or completed, that becomes existence? This idea makes no sense; it's as if there were some non or pre existence (probably something like "potential") that somehow, despite not existing, is able to be perfected into existence. Saying "existence is a perfection" is like saying "time has a beginning." No need to appeal to Scholastic dogmatism to counter this argument

Attached: schop.jpg (198x282, 20K)

for Descartes it would be more correct to say the senses can be more readily doubted, not that deception is a feature of sense person. Descartes already accepts that God would likely create the world such that we are not deceived.

>tfw the captain tosses your gynoid overboard

Seriously though. How pissed would you be?

Attached: descartes.jpg (950x367, 149K)

perception*, not person

If I smell what I thought to be food but after seeing it it turns out to be something inedible, one sense tricks me, but others are there to correct a mistak. In a sense both are right, but it’s probably just context
Epicurus

Of course, he had a fucking waifu. Autists haven't changed much in 370 years

Yes God is perfection, but a perfection that is incomprehensible to humans. Your argument seems to be anthropocentric though, as if God is the perfect of human characteristics and not some ineffable abstraction. God is pure Being, the simplest form of Being, something that is not encountered by humans.

Super,an is more perfect and pure but we encounter hm in the pages of DC comics whenever we want.
You encounter nothing but your imagination, therefore your god, or more aptly put, your gods, as there are as many of them as there are adherents, is nothing but fiction.

Epicurus, obviously

How could you even say he is perfection if his perfection is "incomprehensible"? Yes, there are known unknowns. But anything that is perfect is complete, and if something is known to be complete, its qualities would also have to be known, in order to say that they are complete, or perfect. To say that God is perfect and yet that this perfection is unknowable is something of a contradiction. "This proof is perfect, but the conclusion is unknowable": isn't the conclusion part of the proof?

t.

>You encounter nothing but your imagination
Regardless of whether this is true or not, God exists exclusive of human imagination. Superman is a human invention, God is not. Even if you bring up the qualities attributed to God -- unum, verum, bonum, pulchrum, etc. -- which are ostensibly viewed as manmade or’human,’ they clearly originated from somewhere. That somewhere is God, the ultimate Being, whence these qualities manifest.

forgot pic

Attached: 1e8571d6242566fbb2db80f916c6e65.jpg (557x711, 54K)

Francine is the name of Descartes' daughter, who died very young

>God exists exclusive of human imagination
Except no. Only Superman does.
Gods, like these Latin words, were invented by ancient peoples to breath life into a fictional character in order to keep people worshipping and controllable.
Blind dumb fool
Prove Superman isn’t real

You are truly fucking deluded.

Superman is real. ‘Reality’ is a human invention, so is Superman. But there exists different versions of Superman in different comics and movie adaptations. Does the existence of these various versions negate Superman’s existence in the first place? No. Each of these versions maintains the same core beliefs needed to recognize Superman. Do you see where I’m going with this? Superman started out as a collection of qualities & characteristics (i.e. essence) and then actualized into a drawing (i.e. form). Read my above post about essence vs. existence. God is also a human invention insofar as the religions surrounding Him are. But the difference from God and Superman is that Superman was solely conceived through human faculty; God exists outside of it. God of the Abrahamic traditions may be an ‘invention,’ but Truth exists independent of these practices. Sure, there are many benefits to creating and following an organized religion, such as manipulation/social control. But that does not deny the existence of God. He is transcendent of human imagination, including ‘reality’. It’s like the old Chinese proverb: “There are many paths to the top of the mountain, but the view is always the same.”

You a like a little baby, do you know that? Please fuck off to wherever you came from.

mahnigga.gif

Between the two? Descartes for sure. Hume btfos Descartes eventually.

kek. i wonder what sort of proto-anime they had at the time

>You a like a little baby, do you know that? Please fuck off to wherever you came from.
>believes in the existence of fact and truth in 2019
Relativity exists, pal. There are no facts, only interpretations.

>leviathan is product of human faculty
user, i-

This man's name is « Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » and he's a faggot.

You are also like a little baby. Postmodern retard

Attached: 1556785475454V.png (1222x4777, 1.47M)

>the senses
>the mind
Did either of these retards realise the senses are a function of the brain?

Attached: 086be6df4379c82de5c1d3b76a9153657715788157291ebf1fe3088be7a1400b.jpg (693x490, 64K)

Fucking WORST poster
I wish you would die I really do
Fuck you
Just off yourself you worthless piece of shit

Attached: WORST_POSTER_OF_ALL_TIME.png (486x427, 79K)

Attached: ButterflyPoster.jpg (1920x1080, 681K)

Neither.

Speaking of imitating the ancients, isn't that "3 types of people" quote from Parmenides, or Lucretius, or something? I've definitely seen it outside of Da Vinci

they both deceive

There is, you’re retarded

>reddit spacing

>thinks I'm egalitarian
wrong. Interpretations are not equal. Some assume reality better than others. But an interpretation can not entirely capture a point of reality (aka facts), it can only provide a framework to understand reality. Our concepts are derived from reality, not the other way around religious idiot.

Thanks for outing yourself newfaggot
There is no such thing

>more objective
ouch, poked yourself with your own stick there mate

Attached: retard (6).jpg (560x458, 37K)

Retard, Truth subsumes reality! There is Truth, and then there is you, the postmodern retard! (I never called you egalitarian btw)

>There is Truth
And apparently is larping as a roman faggot

>But, of what?
Of itself, this post is perfect at being itself.

But that still doesn't resolve the problem of the statement, since "existence is a perfection" means that it is a completion, which means that even if existence could somehow perfect itself into a "super-existence," existence would still necessarily be the substrate of that augmentation since it's impossible to imagine nothing being perfected into existence. That is, unless you want to dive into all of that Hegelian chicanery.

>roman faggot
lol wut

>Jes cuz we invented Him don’t mean ‘e ain’t reelz
You’ve just made a case for all fictional characters being real, just to save your favorite fictional character. A man who cannot exist and need not exist, but he’s real in your mind.
Funny funny.

>man

You sound like a lobster boiling to death.

HOLY FUCKING SHIT YOU ABSOLUTE BRAINLET IM LOSING MY MIND OVER YOUR MENTAL RETARDATION
>LE FICTIONAL CHARACTERS CAN BE REAL XDDDD
NO YOU FUCKING FAGGOT YOU DO NOT UNDERTSTAND TO BASIC CONCEPT FROM WHICH ALL OF MY ARGUMENTS STEM
ITS ESSENCE VS. EXISTENCE
ESSENCE VERSUS FUCKING EXISTENCE
ESSENCE IS THE FUNDAMENTAL QUALITIES OF A SUBJECT (IT COMES FROM ‘ESSE’ IN LATIN — WHICH YOU PROBABLY DIDN’T KNOW)
EXISTENCE IS BEING
BEING SUPERSEDES REALITY
‘REALITY’ IS A HUMAN INVENTION
ALL FICTIONAL CHARACTERS ARE REAL INSOFAR AS THEY EXIST WITHIN THE HUMAN MIND BUT IT DOESN’T FUCKING MATTER
GOD MAY OR MAY NOT BE ‘REAL’ ACCORDING TO THIS DEFINITION BECAUSE OF THE CONTINGENCY OF HUMAN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
BUT IT DOESN’T FUCKING MATTER BECAUSE GOD EXISTS OUTSIDE OF WHAT IS ‘REAL’
GOD IS TRANSCENDENTAL, ONE, TRUE, GOOD, BEAUTIFUL, AND THE SIMPLEST FORM OF BEING (THESE TERMS ALL MEAN THE SAME THING IF YOU DIDN’T KNOW)
SUPERMAN DIDN’T CREATE ME OR YOU
SUPERMAN CANNOT GIVE LIFE
SUPERMAN IS NOT ONE TRUE OR GOOD
SUPERMAN WAS CREATED BY MAN
GOD SIMPLY IS

No.
Because you have lost your mind, or perhaps because you have thus far failed to develop it (and maybe it got a little warped along the way) you fail to understand the basics of life and existence.
Perhaps it's not too late for you and you can learn your way out of this hole, but you're going to have to want it. Please, for your own sake, don't take your puffed up animosity towards me to forever sour you from exploring the facts of life and the universe as it Is

embrace the memes

Attached: Tranny Detected.jpg (1289x287, 94K)

have sex incel

Attached: sam the eagle.jpg (339x197, 25K)

they didn't read Hume

Whoever the fuck wrote that did not read the end of the 6th Meditation.
>And I ought not in the least degree to doubt of the truth of these presentations, if, after having called together all my senses, my memory, and my understanding for the purpose of examining them, no deliverance is given by any one of these faculties which is repugnant to that of any other: for since God is no deceiver, it necessarily follows that I am not herein deceived. But because the necessities of action frequently oblige us to come to a determination before we have had leisure for so careful an examination, it must be confessed that the life of man is frequently obnoxious to error with respect to individual objects; and we must, in conclusion, ac. knowledge the weakness of our nature.
Claiming that an idea corresponds to reality is an extremely doubtworthy claim. You can only say you know things as you perceive them to be. Any kind of so-called "necessary" "truth" could only deserve that name in a perfectly simulated reality where everything were indeed perfectly logically consistent.

>namefag
>tries to be taken seriously
sure thing, faggot

>use absurdities to debunk the most absurd facet of history
>must be trying to be taken seriously
No one can prove god exists without telling me Superman exists. It is I who can’t take you seriously.
Just let it go dummies

>le basics of life and existence
please explain, I would like to know

>Claiming that an idea corresponds to reality is an extremely doubtworthy claim
>muh nominalism
you realize reality is a human invention, though
>You can only say you know things as you
perceive them to be
fucking obviously
> Any kind of so-called "necessary" "truth" could only deserve that name in a perfectly simulated reality where everything were indeed perfectly logically consistent
That is God. he transcends reality and logic. he IS Truth, the Logos, and everything in between