That's another thing. Catholic believe in miracles.

I like this man named Johannes

Well we can join the majority of modern rabbis that the scribes of Mt Zion are right in their interpretations of the Torah and the old laws

And thus make respecting the gentiles null

I never understood that. I mean, theologically, I understand why Catholics believe in miracles, and rationality, I know it follows after you can show logical proofs for God, but these too, the miracles, do not confirm to empiricism either. It is not step closer to God in the material base.

Because we can do whatever the fuck we want

Do all Fascists have authority fetishes?

If you show logical proof for God how do you know which religion's god it is

Aquinas showed it.

How does he know it is the Christian god

What did he argue for this

He used natural reason to proof the Trinity.

because he sent down his son down to earth lmao

http://dhspriory.org/thomas/Compendium.htm

What did Aquinas argue in respect to Jesus

How does he know he is not a false messiah

That's a separate argument on the 'miracle' of early Christianity.

Resurrection?

There are other more recent miracles too.

One that comes to mind was in Portugal in 1917

Yes of course, fascism means "Authority" in Hebrew :^)

wait really

Not the resurrection. He means the success of the Apostles is starting the Church, it is seen as 'miraculous'.

From fishermen to wisemen etc.

Of course, which is why fascism is authoritarianism. The chosen language says so

@Deleted User That is an interesting take on it

At Portugal 1917 they were staring at the sun and were hoping for the miracle to occur

Staring at the sun is hard on the eyes

Well that wasn't the only thing that happened

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02plEMzM-CY

Three girls saw apparitions?

Ghost sightings happen all the time

"Ghost" sightings

Basically, 3 children in Portugal saw on multiple occassions appartions of The Virgin Mary over a period of many months.

Did anyone else see them or just these three kids

It was just them

I am starting to see a chink in the armour. Miracles that are explanable by empirical means are no longer miracles. If physics, for example, observes that matter is self-generating on a quantum level, if zero-point energy is discovered for example, it would hurt Aquinas' argument based on motion and causality.

Heh.

But later there was the Miracle of The Sun which was observed and reported on by many accounts. Including the anti-religious porutgese press.

_Then the Fundies say god created the science to make the miracles or the Fundies deny it_

Staring at the sun hurts the eyes

And many claimed nothing happened

*Stares at sun*

Brb taking a test

>1910s Portugal

>Fundies

lmao

If Aquinas was discredits as having based his arguments on oversimplified observations, it would undermine the whole Church. Very hard to recover from.

Has he been discredited?

Not yet.

I am just trying to envision a scenario where he could be.

It would be very hard for anyone to recover from their ideas being disproven

But I can see what you mean

I am sure the Church would just move back to Augustinan thinking.

'God is too mysterious' .

Possibly

Although Augustine's theology is still essential to Aquinas'

Oh really?

Yes, the writings of Saint Augustine are very important to the founding theology of Christianity.

It was elaborated and expanded upon by later theologians.

Hmmm, so it would be very bad.

Of course the idea of logic still holds, only that the premise has been undermined.

Yes

Regardless though, it's still hypothetical.

That right. Newtonian physics supports it.

Newton believed in God of some sort too, I believe.

It's a little hard to determine whether or not Newton was a Christian because he also practiced the occult

why arent any of you pusses on voice chat

lets talk politics aye

The vulnerability is Aquinas' conclusions is highlighted by the empirical errors of Aristotle too, who, while have flawless logic, made incorrect conclusions about the universe because of his oversimplified observations.

yup

lets just admit that science demolished the influence of philosophy

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ccpo1IwWwAA71R1.jpg

__**Aristotle's errors include:**__
```Men have more teeth than women.
Heavy objects fall faster than light objects.
Men's blood is hotter than women's blood.
There are people who are naturally born to be slaves, and it is just and right to enslave them.
The earth is the center of the universe.
The earth and everything in it existed for all eternity and will exist for all eternity.
Some animals spontaneously come into being from mud and earth; they don't reproduce.'''
The natural state for all objects is to be at rest; they require constant application of force to move.
There are a total of seven heavenly bodies, which are perfect and never change.
The heart is the organ of reason and intellect.
The function of the brain is to cool the blood.```

tbh I wouldnt blame him for those errors

take away all the scientific technology we have today and there is nothing to prove that the Earth isnt the center of the Universe

Exactly. So when Aquinas uses Aristotlean logic to prove the existence of God, what excludes him from similar errors?

I actually havent read Aristotle so i can't address those points

sorry about that

How many times will scholastic scholars retreat from false premises and recreate new argument when old ones fail, before admitting the futility in their logical pursuits?

Cosmonaut 👩‍🚀

What is the futility in creating new arguments?

lmao fuck Azov

I specially by theologians who make arguments for the existence of God based on oversimplified observations. They are, as Freuerbach put it, trying to 'deduce empirical existence from an a priori idea'.

They are perfectly happy to accept their conclusions right up until they are empirically shown to be wrong.

I disagree with religion in that it teaches you to be content with no motivation to search for more

They assume an Absolute existence based on a temporary existence.

It would be worse if they did not accept empirical evidence

There are still evolution deniers

If the Church ever has to retract Aquinas' argument, based on 'all things that move are moved by other things' (Compendium of Theology), because science refutes it, then whole thing goes down.

Catholics don't deny evolution.

It won't go down. They will simply say that they believe in God through faith, as most Christians today do

However, it would be vulnerable to other religions claiming the same

In which case whose is better? There would be no answer

They would jump to trying to prove Jesus' resurrection again

Proving that the theology of the Church was based on an irrational basis, is enough for me.