One single picture BTFOs the entirety of the Catholic church, The Summa, Augustine, All Apologetic work

>One single picture BTFOs the entirety of the Catholic church, The Summa, Augustine, All Apologetic work

Attached: 1dh80waaauf31.jpg (1024x764, 156K)

Other urls found in this thread:

plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-religion/#GodCriPurReaTraDia
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

>dude just apply empirical logical to transcendental, spiritual concepts
And atheists wonder why everyone hates them. Some things are beyond science.

>The First Vatican Council declares that God can be known by human reason
>Uses reason to BTFO God
Christcucks eternally btfo

>if I define arbitrary values to stuff I win

Crazy how Catholics are totally in charge of every aspect of Christian faith.

>...and that's why its okay for me to jack off.

Attached: 1509989926060.jpg (640x632, 82K)

second premise is faulty, the existence itself is not what makes it perfect

correct logical re-statement would be:
premise 1= 1 exists
premise 2= 1 is perfect
premise 3= 1 is god
(x.y)hook(z)

you're depending the entire logical argument on a false premise.

remember user, your premise is faulty if it relies on prior information
but really I think you know absolutely nothing about logic and only posted this picture because you think it'll confuse the average Yea Forums poster because
a: this is simple rules of how statements and basic symbols work (read Goldfarb)
b: any introductory logic class should address the counterargument of god not adhering to logic in it's metaphysics lecture

;)

Yep

Jesus named Peter as his viceregent in his will.

pseud

>iif

Did anyone bother to read this?

>Doesn't define or even deal with what Perfection entails
>Existence is not a predicate
>7 is insufficiently justified
>8 doesn't make sense

This is trash. Read Gödel nigger

LOL. Your brain on STEM.

Imagine not reading Kant

not an argument

no argument in sight

very cute. very incorrect

>mistyping something invalidates the argument! looks like I win again, atheists!

kek no. and you have't read Godel either, because you can't explain his proof and also if had read him you would know he only did his "proof" as a logical experiment and did not himself believe in god

a comment without content, so surprising

imagine not being able to explain how Kant refutes this in any way whatsoever

logic btfo??!!?

>imagine not being able to explain how Kant refutes this in any way whatsoever
He doesn't refute it, he shows that you can both construct a perfectly valid proof that demonstrates the existence of God as well as one that demonstrates his non-existence. Read Kant.

you've lost
get over it.

there are a couple points that a made can you point out what specifically is incorrect?
formatting was a bit fucked and caused it to be incorrect but I feel like the basic thinks being said could be validated or revised if you point them out.

He did believe in God retard. It is literally ahistorical to believe otherwise.

stemfag nonsense. prove that this makes any sense.

>the first is to remember that a definition can not entail actual existence
QUESTION BEGGING
QUESTION BEGGING

just read kierkegaard
If anyone is trying to justify God to you empirically they do not understand or know God.

Explain
Not btw

Too long for a Yea Forums post, read this plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-religion/#GodCriPurReaTraDia

this is not stem, its philosophy.

"Empirical logic"
If only there was a button to mute all retard trads on this board...

Attached: vejvf0qao6j31.jpg (640x418, 33K)

You are applying logic to an entity or phenomenon that is supposedly outside the universe.
I am an atheist by the way, because I see no reason to invoke the belief in a god or he existance of a god for any reason.

If you're argument relies on math, you've left the realm of philosophy and entered the realm of autism.

That's not an argument. Imagine forming a debate against a philosophy like nihilism and bringing in autistic mathematical formulas to somehow "disprove" it.

"Mathematical"
Jesus fucking Christ. You probably frighten at the sound of your own farts.

Attached: D4NRsHWW0AAVfte.jpg (640x491, 44K)

Ok, retard

What is Rome's claim to Peter's legacy?

>it's all made up, we don't have to explain shit
the absolute state of theism

>men made of straw
the absolute state of atheist "arguments"

Except it doesn't and It's brainlet tier.
Don't You ever feel shame in your heart?

Look at him seethe.
We have seen everything We need here.

you're the one suggesting we shouldn't apply logic to "spiritual concepts". just admit you believe something entirely made up on faith

And that's a bad thing, how?

based

>@logicandprogress

Attached: finnegans wake.jpg (1012x1012, 73K)

it's bad because it is not the pathway to truth. billions of people put their faith in the Bhagavad Gita in the exact way billions of other people put their faith in the Bible and a different billion in the Koran. it's just cultural tribalism

Godels incompletemess theorem proves this wrong

The reformulation is entirely invalid, largely due to a complete misunderstanding of the original proposition--which is itself not an accurate representation of Church dogma. God is not defined as a perfect being; formulating in such terms suggests some void in which God exists, in which other beings of the same categories and qualities could exist. This is obviously absurd, and is the origin of many errors. God is not merely perfect--God is the source and origin of being. He is being itself. So it is not that Gods existence entails perfection, but that God, as being itself, is also perfection, not as a consequence, but in essence. Then, by three, it is equivocating dramatically. It suggests that there is a less perfect version of God which would simply be less perfect by not-existing. Suddenly, rather than considering God as the source and origin of all being, and therefore qualities, God is an object which is subjected to quality and categorization. This whole exercise demonstrates the inherent flaw to such formal analytic philosophy. It is really no different than continental post-modernism--rather than discussing anything in terms of essences and what is essential, it uses an obfuscating syntax in order to hide shifting definitions and logical leaps. If Pollock and Tremblay had bothered to actually write out their argument in full, rather than trying to compress it into a silly shorthand, maybe they would have realized the many errors; at least the reader would have been better able to see them.

Premise 7 is just smuggling the conclusion into the argument OP. .