This man PROVED God

>Copy paste Aristotle
>insert bible
>I did it guise!

Aquinas exercised the least critical thought of anyone in the western canon.

Why would he need to disprove something that has never been proven?

Modern physics says nothing about something being actual. Insofar it claims that something can actualize itself from "nothing", it always turns out that this nothing isnt really nothing but some other thing like quantum foam.

actuality and potentiality have never been argued against
therefore god is true
sorry if these means you can't continue being a degenerate sodomite

Because two of his arguments are based on the assertion that an infinite regress is impossible. Those who make claims have the burden of proof.
We're not talking about creation ex nihilo so I fail to see your point here.

Youve statemodas if cyclical cosmological models somehow challenge Aquinas thought when they fail to do so.

Stated as if*

They really do. There's multiple cyclic models of the universe with an infinite regress that are consistent with our modern understanding of physics. The idea that a monk from the 13th century disproved their possibility by saying, "Uuuh, but what CAUSED the infinite regress?" is absurd.

>The idea that a monk from the 13th century disproved their possibility by saying, "Uuuh, but what CAUSED the infinite regress?" is absurd.

Attached: eee.jpg (647x740, 54K)

> The First Way: Argument from Motion
Proves that he has no idea of physics and even if there was a "first mover" it doesn't necessary mean it is God, it's just the Big bang.

>The Second Way: Argument from Efficient Causes
Again, doesn't necessary mean God. Cosmic egg is as far as we know the cause for all and it came by itself (just like you would say for God, he came by itself cause he is God) or by something which doesn't have to be God.

The Third Way: Argument from Possibility and Necessity (Reductio argument):
Again, doesn't have to be God. It might as well be that the thing that causes all existence is just an omnipotent physics law that causes existence but which, by itself, is just a law with no consciousness.

The Fourth Way: Argument from Gradation of Being
Worst argument by far. Literally a presumption that goes from the postulate "The maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus" which is not provable or necessary for the world to exist.

The Fifth Way: Argument from Design
No, everything moves because it is so by itself. It doesn't need a intelligence to move it. Instead, it is the laws of the universe which made move things the way it did.

And, at the end, suppose we say all the arguments are true. It does not mean that is the Christian God in question. It might as well be Ahura Mazda since none of this arguments say about the state of the God himself. God might just as well mean "Not knowable" and the arguments would mean a lot more sense.

Aristotle was God?

Its not absurd. Its basic logic to question why something such as quantum fluctuations or any other conjecture at the base of a particular cyclical model should be valid, especially when they:

1. Are experimentally unverifiable
2. Have no logical backing for its conjectures other than circular reasoning
3. Arent widely agreed upon as being even purely theoretically valid among physicists (hence a large number of them).

G-d is. Facts are. Logic is.

Nobody is arguing that you cant believe in a cosmic egg or an omnipotent physical law. Aquinas merely made arguments for a particularity he calls God.

I'll repeat again. Acquinas' argument is premised on infinite regresses being false. He thought he proved infinite regresses, like the cyclical models, though he didn't have them specifically in mind, were DISPROVEN because he thought infinite processes themselves needed a cause. When you call those models only theoretically possible and unfalsifiable, you are disagreeing with Acquinas.
If you believe as Acquinas did, that it's either an infinite regress or god (a retarded idea as well, but this whole time I haven't been really caring to do a systematic break down of his arguments, but to goof on people who take a 13th century monk seriously on what's theoretically possible in our physical universe), you have to DISPROVE the possibility of an infinite regress to make your argument for god valid, not just state that an infinite regress has been failed to be proven.

Catholics deliberately make bad arguments to destroy Christianity because they're Atheists.

Saying an omnipotent being can create concrete objects ex nihilo is a bit like saying it's possible to barf up a lunch you didn't eat with sufficiently strenuous dry heave.

Redpilled take.

almost too based

>yes gaytheists and fagnostics seem to have ignored him for centuries
Taking this from the last thread because theists stopped responding:
>first mover would have to be omnipotent because to be omnipotent is to be able to do anything that is logically possible
Where did he get the information that the first mover is doing things consciously rather than unconsciously?
>Pure actual would also have to know anything since a lack of knowledge is a potential.
And knowing is an active engagement, which is also a potential.

I don't see how omniscience and omnipotence are necessarily the attributes of actualization of potential.

Maybe so but he didn't prove or even offer solid arguments for why it was the Christian God that exists instead of the other religions, you might as well become a Muslim or Hindu
Aquinas didn't believe in creation ex-nihilio, that's a popular misconception about him, he believed that matter was co-eternal with God, the later Catholic Church differs from him in this regard.

If I read the entire Summa will God bring me to heaven in a chariot of fire?

Probably not but I bet Aquinas would let you chill with him.

Has anyone actually read/studied a lot of the Summa? I’m thinking about doing an independent study on it next semester but I’m worried it’ll get boring.

>In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Attached: 3EA17A02-763D-447A-B84D-B4AE253D4083.jpg (470x470, 62K)

>One of the smartest people to ever live vs. 21st century Yea Forums fags

Attached: 5ED844C4-979D-456F-90E0-A8DAE58E1CCA.jpg (960x838, 52K)

>important question
>objection 1: some dude in a historically unsound, a dozen times translated in the biggest game of telephone in history, said this
>objection 2: this other dude said this while jerking off thinking of god
>objection 3: principles upon principles either part of circular logic or "dude God said so lmao"
>synthesis: Have this response out of my ass because it's obvious, otherwise you just don't get it.

What's beyond is unimaginable. Even if there is an infinite regress, it will still have an end because paradoxes don't actually exist to God. Stop trying to use scientific jargon to disprove metaphysical concepts. Science is lightyears behind metaphysics. Humans are much dumber today than they were 2000 or 1000 years ago.

>Your first argument
See above.
>Your 2nd argument
It does necessarily have to be all because God is the beginning and the end, the alpha and the omega, the be all end all. If it came by itself, it still would have come from God by definition of God.
>Your 3rd argument.
Again, it has to be God. What you described is logos, which is God. You obviously have 0 understanding of theology. Logos is a very fundamental concept of Christianity, you embarrass yourself when trying to disprove it when you don't even know what logos is.
>Your 4th argument
You may be right here. God can't be quantified as he is beyond quantities. Still, your counter-argument of "lol, no" is much worse than his argument.
>Your 5th argument
I feel dumb for even pointing this out, but have you ever considered that the laws of the universe are an intelligence all by themselves? Again, Logos.
>Your last argument
I could write a book about this but you won't understand any of it, so I won't bother. I suggest you educate yourself on the various christian, hindu, sufi theological concepts first before posting about religion again.

>What's beyond is unimaginable
What humans can't and can imagine is irrelevant to what is true. I can only really imagine a Newtonian conception of space and time. That itself doesn't debunk special and general relativity.
>Even if there is an infinite regress, it will still have an end because paradoxes don't actually exist to God.
Infinite regresses aren't paradoxes.
>Stop trying to use scientific jargon to disprove metaphysical concepts.
Make a metaphysical argument that an infinite regress can't exist and maybe I will.

Stirner is actually just SPOOKS LMAO. Posting the russian proofs rooster is classic bugman behavior. His final line is just an expression of doubt no need to give proofs.

>Disprove models that barely account for anything and just wave hands saying Muh Dark Energy and muh Dark Mater.

Problem is that isn't unique to cyclic models. That's just what physics is built on now, lol.

>His final line is just an expression of doubt no need to give proofs.
Being on Yea Forums with this kind of reading comprehension isn't surprising. What, mommy told you that reading is cool and for smart people? Don't worry, if you practice more you will understand that
>i doubt any so called enlightenment or neitschean philosopher has ever even read his proofs
doesn't have the literal meaning.

I hate how this picture is formatted

Literally the most based thing ever written

>Sciencefags seriously don't understand basic metaphysics
Time is a measure of change, ergo it has to have a beginning and eventually will have an end. It really is simple as.

Reread what i wrote.

Lmfao holy shit you're actually making me laugh user. This is so pathetic.
>I-it isn't God! I-it's a principle!
Any backwoods troglodyte would hear that and being right in dismissing you as being deluded by your own overeducation. Imagine not knowing anything about the philosophy of science. Lastly, Aquinas' arguments are philosophical, not theological. They are meant to prove the existence of a single divine being with all the attributes he mentions immediately that he may begin with his theological work.
>Knowing is an active engagement
Active engagement in what? Responding to a prompt? That isn't knowledge that's recall.
What's your favorite episode of Family Guy, user?

Knowing implies there is someone there to know, it implies consciousness. Something that contains information is one thing, but being conscious of that information is another.

dangerously based and overdosed on redpills

Consciousness is an interpretation of the essence through the substance. God has no substance as he is his own essence, ergo things like consciousness and unconsciousness do not apply.

So why call him omnipotent or omniscient?

To elaborate, the definition of omniscient is knowing everything, the definition of to know is to be aware of through observation, inquiry, or information. If aware or unaware do not apply, if things like consciousness and unconsciousness do not apply, then neither does omniscient or not-omniscient, so you can't use that definition.

A recent movement in physics posits that time doesn't exist at all. In other words, it's not as simple as you claim. You, like Aquinas aren't going to come up with a proof for god with some a priori meditations on your conscious musings. In any case the idea of some proof for god defeats the need for faith, ironic.

It really is not simple as.

>A recent movement in physics posits that time doesn't exist at all.
This is your alternative to God? Maybe God commanded us not to worship false idols because it's so fucking cringe more than anything else.

Attached: Oh+my+sides+_7cd68fd68a320801a994e81f501a4eed.jpg (340x340, 22K)

>ergo it has to have a beginning and eventually will have an end
That is a complete nonsequitur.

Aside from the fact that all suppositions ultimately rely on faith, just because we can prove something a priori doesn't mean it's easy to believe. We're visual creatures.

I'm trying to convey that the person I replied to is being insanely naive and absurd if they think they have mastered the understanding of time.

By the standards of someone whose ontological foundation is "shit happened", yeah, I suppose I could see that.

What a galaxy brain take. This is why the social fabric is disintegrating rapidly everywhere this ideology pervades. Unadulterated delusion.

Inserting god into the equation does not help explain anything, aside from an emotional view. It merely adds another variable into the equation, which will hence need further explanation. You can swap god out for any conceivable notion of a creator, or, for that matter any possible creationist scenario you could possibly fathom. It doesn't explain anything, it's based on blind faith (belief in the ABSENCE of evidence).

How can god be pure actuality if he came down to be crucified?

Whenever I see an ad hominem, I know I must have lost the argument.

Look at the LHC, they have sent particles forward in time, literally, inspired by Einstein's theories. Time is relative to your position and speed in the cosmos. Time is rooted in consciousness.

>Time has a beginning and thus an end, I am 100% sure of it.
This, regardless of its truth (I'm willing to accept its truth) is a poor intellectual position to take.

>Look at the LHC, they have sent particles forward in time, literally, inspired by Einstein's theories. Time is relative to your position and speed in the cosmos.
>Time is rooted in consciousness.
This is a non-sequitar btw. As an analogy, the shape one paints on a flat canvas of some object, if they are using the proper projective geometry, is relative to the position the artist is in with respect to the figure. However, the shape he has to draw from a given position is not subjective. It's just a function of where he is, which is an objective one. Further, the figure he's drawing has an objective shape that is casually responsible for those relative aspects he experiences. It is the same shape in all reference frames.
Replace 2D projections at how fast time passes in comparision to a reference frame and the shape the figure objectively has with the spacetime interval.

causally*
with how fast*

I may have wrote that clumsily but time's basis in consciousness wasn't the conclusion in a premises.

I should have said "and time is rooted"

Time is relative to our human conscious method of understanding it. In other words I'm more than open to the possibility that our 21st century brains are not capable of trespassing the layers of what is in some "objective sense" existence. Or to put it more frankly, personally I think that the way humans perceive things is not necessarily the complete way.

Cringe

Ok Beavis

Attached: Beavis-1.png (534x1000, 129K)

I'm pretty sure Aquinas wasn't a heretic. Genesis 1:1 clearly reads created as in poof and not fashioned out of himself. Besides, if you allow the possibility of matter existing eternally, any and all theistic arguments that rely on the worn idea of something just popping into existence for no reason being absurd therefore goddidit are rendered impotent.

Lmao niggas just look at this argument for god:

"Being is"

Lmao owned

Attached: IMG_xrub23.jpg (843x844, 134K)

By that reasoning claiming there is an universe outside our solar system when we did not have the means to confirm it merely added another variable that was unecessary.

God requires the same amount of faith as the idea that existence is exhausted by our contemporary notions of scientific evidence. To believe that is the case you have to believe in by absence of evidence because the scientific method cannot verify itself.

You're misunderstanding the type of infinite regress Aquinas focused on. Now I'm no Thomist but from what I understand, he isn't claiming that a spacial-temporal infinite regress cannot exist as so described by the laws of physics. Instead what Aquinas argued was that from a metaphysical stance, an infinite regress cannot do explanatory work. For Aquinas, there is an explanatory principle that suffices to point to as a reason for something's existence. Assuming the principle of sufficient reason for believing there is such an explanation, Aquinas would not agree that a cyclic cosmological model would suffice as an explanation for a thing's existence. The cyclic cosmological model would serve to merely describe the behavior and associated properties of a thing, not explain its existence. Recall that Aquinas is working with a much richer understanding of causality and the limited mechanistic view dominating physics, only focuses on efficient causes (or so the Thomist claims) leaving out other causes such as material, formal, and teleological.
If you don't agree with Aquinas' claims fine just don't mischaracterize his arguments.

Physicists are obviously lying. They are as bad as single moms.

Attached: 5b9235bb5c5e5254548b59f5-1136-852.jpg (1136x852, 99K)

It's more that Aquinas didn't definitively prove a God, though he does offer some interesting arguments.

Genesis never mentions that God created the universe from nothing, and neither did Aquinas base his arguments on that being true.
>theistic arguments that rely on the worn idea of something just popping into existence for no reason being absurd therefore goddidit are rendered impotent.
This is the strawman of a person who's clearly extremely ignorant of both theology and Aquina's arguments.

The Word was made flesh for the sake of your soul

This logical leap don't make any sense

Even if his arguments are to be accepted all he proved was deism. aTHEISTS (it's in the name!) don't believe in a theistic god.

Pardon my ignorance, what do you guys mean by Aristotleian in this context? How does Aristotle comes into play?

Aquinas just regurgitates Aristotle and (poorly) Neoplatonism

A lot of theists use Aristotelian forms of argumentation such as syllogisms and logical deductions to prove the existence of god. This approach ends up being too simplistic and ignores the nuances and intricacies of modern physics. If you want to see one of these faggots get BTFO in real time, watch the WLC vs Sean Carrol debate. WLC opens with his usual syllogisms and Aristotelian thinking and Carrol, an actual physicist, utterly dismantles him.

>time is a measure of change
>ergo
>must have beginning and end
>must
>ergo

Explain this reasoning?????

Why is "shit happened" unacceptable ontological foundation?

>This man PROVED God
Thats not Goedel, though

>actuality and potentiality are objectively true and irrefutable

Attached: 1559931452627.png (206x204, 99K)

>Big bang.
What caused that, genius?

thats more like materialists

>God can't be quantified

Then he is meaningless, no?

>I'm a huge Thomas Augustine

Attached: 1343118269665.jpg (1000x698, 255K)

Explain more

is this true Theist?

Why is it a poor position?

Love created the universe.

This makes no sense. Write better

Explain this

God created everything out of love. The basic force that moves the planets and everything is love. So it is logical that he would sacrifice himself for his masterpiece because he is pure Love and expects us to love too.

How is that the basic force? This is New Age bs

>By that reasoning claiming there is an universe outside our solar system when we did not have the means to confirm it merely added another variable that was unecessary.
That's exactly right. Until you have a reason to add additional aspects to a theory, you really shouldn't. I could create conceptual theories of how the world around me operates based on anything ridiculous: traffic lights change faster when I swear at them, there is a magical teapot orbiting earth, invisible unicorns are hiding in my attic, etc.

The thing is in the best case these theories will fail to more accurately and completely describe the world around us, while in the worst case they are demonstrably false when they can be tested.

>but just bc you can't test it doesn't mean it doesn't exist!!1!
If it is unknowable, in that it has no impact on the material world, then it is of no consequence.

No it isn't. Matthew 22:37-40. That's the basis of Christianity.
What would be the motive to create the universe if not love?

how can a pure actuality god create anything? "created" pressuposes something "uncreated", with potentiality to be, and an agent with potentiality to create

He is omnipotent.

What is 'love' here? And why can't the creation of a universe simply suffice here? Why must it be done under the deed of 'love'?

God does not create. He simply IS.

God is not the universe. There's a distinction between creator and creature.

well thats your faith, but we are debating Aquinas here, and one of the characteristics of what he call God is pure actuality, so how can a pure actuality God create anything?

>He simply IS
is He me then?

Love similar to the one you feel for your family but much greater. It's agape. If the universe exists and it came from somewhere there must be a reason for it to exist. God is perfect and he doesn't act recklessly.

Him being actus purus doesn't contradict the fact that he can create everything. Actus purus means he is not preceded by any potency.

Langan disagrees with this. What do you mean 'God is not the universe'...God is everything
Why must it be love and why is love perfect?

that would mean that god came along with all creation, for how can something of potency and contingency came from something that is changeless and pure actuality?
After all, potency and actuality are concepts based on the passage of time, do god create time or was he before time? if he was before time the concept of "pure actuality" has no real meaning

Langan is a meme. What other feeling is superior to love? If not for love nothing can be created. We see this in our lives when by the means of love between a man and a woman is born a life.
Love also helps identify a little the true nature of God as the Holy Trinity. God is one but has three persons. That's because the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit love themselves mutually. God being pure love needs to love and be loved and he made us to partake on this love too.

God is eternal. He is outside time. I still fail to see the why an omnipotent being can't exercise his omnipotence.

>OH NO NO NO NO LOOK AT THE TOP OF THIS NIGGA HEAD AAAHHAHAHAH
where do i start with him

Attached: bait gon b good.jpg (625x626, 80K)

if God is outside of time that would mean from his perspective everything has already happened, the eschaton, the 2nd coming etc., so there's no actual reward for a moral life because everything has already being decided

>If it is unknowable, in that it has no impact on the material world, then it is of no consequence.

the problem is to you "unknowable" is related only to the scientific method but there is no evidence to prove that should be the case. there is also an even bigger problem in the jump you make that if something is unknowable then it has no impact on the material world.

I admit that I don't have the knowledge to comment about this. But somehow free will and God being omniscient are not contradictory. Aquinas commented about it. I need to study more to give you a proper answer.

Carrol simply repeats the same thing over and over again. He makes the unprovable assumption that scientific method is the best method to prove validity of something and then acts like a genius for showing that the tool he uses (scientific method) obtains results it is built to get (materialistic answers). All Carrol does is use circular reasoning.

Time is obviously dependant on perspective, that doesn't diminish free will. If somebody watched the tape of your life in advance, that doesn't mean you aren't making decision and actions right now.

Edward Feser has a good introduction to Aquinas, start there.

Aquinas and his horseshit ''philosophy'' was debunked years ago.

youtu.be/U3yKxvW9yNA

The only way for resolving this is using other definitions for free will and omnoscient
Well actions and decisions are being made, if they have a single outcome then they are not really free

You might have different outcomes in your locality but in God's locality they are played out before you actually choose one. I don't see any issue here.

What do you mean? He BTFO'd Craig's cosmological argument by showing that the universe might be eternal, thus disproving the second premise.

Aquinas is not talking about a temporal regress

Is this a joke

Attached: 8ba783882f7e8943d3e47b07e4582857.png (524x499, 234K)

You know babies can be born with just sex, not love. That was foolish of you to say.

cheerio m8

Sex can only be made without sin after marriage and it serves for the sake of procreation. Deviating from it goes against the order of things.

As much as i like Stirner he most certainly did not

But the prospect of different outcomes is incompatible with the single outcome already known by god by definition, that is, the different outcomes don't exist and the one know by god do exist

I can only rephrase it, I thought it was stated fairly clearly:

1. The definition of omniscient is knowing everything
2. The definition of to know is to be aware of through observation

The very definition of omniscience includes awareness, but the post I was replying to said "things like consciousness and unconsciousness do not apply." Then how can omniscience be a necessary attribute of God (as claimed by Aquinas)? If God is neither conscious nor unconscious then he is undefinable, and calling him omniscient would be defining him in a pretty specific way. If he is both conscious and unconscious, that's an oxymoron, and cannot be used as a logical argument.

none of his arguments prove a consciousness, just a prime mover/cause/necessity.
I believe because consciousness is a logical endform of any mix of things vying for existence. But Aquineas has no argument like that, just some old cosmological arguments.

who is that angry feminist

yes you gay cunt

Anyone know where the argument is?

He means movement from potential to actual brainlet. Big Bang had to be caused

>I believe because consciousness is a logical endform of any mix of things vying for existence. But Aquineas has no argument like that, just some old cosmological arguments.
That's because Aquinas doesn't believe "consciousness is a logical endform of any mix of things vying for existence." That doesn't mean he doesn't have a philosophy of mind. For Aquinas, consciousness is divided into the intellectual and sensory powers. Anything that is alive, that is animated, has a soul. As it has a soul, it has certain powers. As the soul of the animated thing differs between differing animated things, different powers emerge. So, as man is an animal, man too has shared powers with animals and plants and other animated things: these are the sensory powers. But man, as he is a different animated thing, also has new powers, namely the intellectual powers. It is these powers that lead him to various conclusions, like God having a mind. Now the actual steps he takes to show these rely on various assumptions, namely that the intellect reveals the essence of things.

That's not love, but sex.

Did the 18th-19th century authors that advocated for atheism really just forgot about him?
Serious question, haven't they at least mentioned Aquinas and tried to debunk all of his shit?

>Did the 18th-19th century authors that advocated for atheism really just forgot about him?
No. Several regurgitated scholastic arguments that were used against Aquinas.

>Serious question, haven't they at least mentioned Aquinas and tried to debunk all of his shit?
Some have addressed the arguments Aquinas made but more often than not, they've mischaracterized them. The few that have understood them attempt to refute them by showing Aristotelian metaphysics to be deficient in some aspect (either by denying the act/potency distinction, hylemorphism, etc.). But there's good reason to accept Aristotelian metaphysics in some aspect and there is a modicum of support for it in philosophy of science (especially in the discussion of causality).

Do these NIGGAS even be reading The CRITIQUE of PURE REASON

Excuse me fellow Greeks, I'm just going to invent LOGIC AND MATH

Attached: pythagoras-memory-technique-main.jpg (1920x1280, 208K)

Stirner never said there was no god, in fact he recognized there might be, but he said it didn't matter to him either way. So no, he didn't, and next time try and read a book before you pretend you know the contents of it.

Sophists owned with FACTS and MATH

Attached: Pythagorean Temperament.png (1360x1302, 1.74M)

>good reason
Such as?

Without going too much into detail, specifically within the philosophy of science, theories of the laws of nature are inadequate at explaining what laws of nature are. Humean supervenience and regularity accounts do not capture what a "law of nature" really is. As a prerequisite to discussion of what a law of nature is, causality is discussed but several metaphysicians of Aristotelian or of an anti-Humean bent have discussed that on the above accounts, causality isn't properly captured. Under the Humean supervenience account, it has all the various faults associated with the notion of supervenience. Meanwhile the regularity account is far too inclusive of phenomena that is not a "law of nature."

Enter the dispositionalist who argue that laws of nature can be explained under what they call dispositions. A glass breaks when dropped from a certain height because it has the disposition of fragility. This is right in line with the medieval conception of powers belonging to a form. Furthermore, dispositionalists (like Anjum and Mumford) have provided a more fruitful approach to causality than the regularity theorists and Humeans by positing that causes "only tend to their effects." In fact they call their approach, neo-Aquinian in their 2010 paper.

Granted, discussion of dispositions within the philosophy of science is still ongoing and needs clarification in regards to wherein the disposition lies. Consider the glass example: wherein does the glass have the disposition? Does the glass as a whole have it or do the molecules that comprise the glass have it?

Parallel to this, is the growing support for emergentism that is similar to the Aristotelian notion of the whole being prior to the part (i.e. the substantial form).

Nonetheless, emergentism and dispositionalism are riffed with problems and some Thomists have argued can only be made intelligible with an acceptance of a broader Aristotelian metaphysics (such as an acceptance of teleological, formal, and material causes).

Cool stuff nerd. But if God created the universe who created God?

Yeah I'm aware of theistic whining about xyz "not explaining" things when it turns out reality is much more boring than a medieval world with agents like gnomes and leprechauns hiding in every bush and divinely created "substances" having "powers" and "natural ends". Read John T. Roberts.

>reality is much more boring than a medieval world with agents like gnomes and leprechauns hiding in every bush and divinely created "substances" having "powers" and "natural ends".
I highly doubt that PDE theory is a fascinating field of study.

>theistic whining about xyz "not explaining" things when it turns out reality is much more boring than a medieval world
It's not just theists. Any metaphysician worth their salt should question Hume. Anyway, I don't see how belief in substances, powers, and natural ends somehow implies a non-banal world. They do a better job at capturing what natural phenomena are than a Humean would with their impressionistic picture of the world.

>John T. Roberts
I glean that he's a Humean. I'll give him a gander but I'm not partial to Hume. I think he's misguided.

If something has impact on the material world, then it is knowable. It might not be an easy process to gain knowledge, but it is possible.
Ergo, anything that is knowable, affects the physical world, can be obseved/measured, and is best found through the scientific method.

kek

The apparition of this low-quality bait proves that Yea Forums is rapidly becoming /rel/. There is religion in many, many threads

sage