The Essence of Christianity seems to be based on an anthropological explanation of religion, stemming from Hegel's assumption that 'the Creation remains a part of the Creator'. I see the logical process, but it is more a refutation of Hegel than of Aquinas' Cosmological Argument.

Anyway, I am so sick of this.

From my understanding of it so far it also makes false claims about Christianity.

Such as being about the worship of man.

It is based on Hegel's theology.

And Feuerbach's idea is that there is an anthropological (man-made) explanation for religion.

Which is fine and dandy, but it doesn't get to the root of the issue of metaphysical claims.

These are two separate things. You have to be a believing Hegelian to have relevance to this critique.

This fucking guy.

Hegel was a Protestant.

Saving that picture

That's a good one too

Where are you getting these?

I found this website called Google.

I see

I'm going mad.

Feuerbach does not exactly say there is no need for God. He says that God is explained by anthropology. The God that man projects is not the same God posed by Aquinas. He establishes God's essence through logic not inference of common traits.

Did you actually read Feuerbach?

I'm reading it right now https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/feuerbach/works/essence/

I never read Aquinas and probably will never do.

I'm not sure what is a problem.

My understanding is if there is a first mover - he is the one to move first by itself. In this situation universe is criticized as being unable to make the first move and in the same time first mover is able. For me it is just an imaginary situation. The universe is eternally moving as far as we know.

If the first mover can move by himself than the universe also can.

The need of the first mover is not obvious to me.

The first mover is necessary, it is called 'contingent being'. You can read about it here if you want to. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/

Anyway, I'm just flapping about being a drama queen. For a normal person ambiguity is not a problem. But my personality does not allow it.

>The first mover is necessary, it is called 'contingent being'.

For who?

Not necessary for me.

Yeah, I'm not explaining it.

Not necessary for most philosophers past 1800

That's because they haven't examined the arguments.

No, they disagree with arguments.

Not that I have seen.

You just disregard the arguments.

That's an insult.

You did disregard my argument and it is not even my. Everybody agrees on this.