first year intro to philosophy

> first year intro to philosophy
> start with Descartes
> he’s positioned as the binary opposite to Aristotle (Plato doesn’t exist)
> cogito ergo sum is broken down hyperautistically, in true analytic fashion, two hours is spent doing this
> god comes up
> ohshit.jpg
> nevermind, there’s a squad of trend following trads willing to reference Aquinas ad nauseum
> the fedoras barely even bother to ask questions, beyond pointing out that the ontological argument is retarded
> lecturer provides Kant as the opposition to ontological argument(since he’s a great atheist)
> the conclusion reached is that none of this matters, since god obviously doesn’t exist

I’m a cradle Catholic, and I’d like to apologise in advance for when these individuals appear in your life.

Attached: image.jpg (376x275, 123K)

Why would I read Aquinas when there are YouTube videos of Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris proving that God doesn't exist?

>that kid who's on his laptop 24/7
>somehow he doesn't understand the arguments

They don’t read Aquinas, they just autistically mention him whenever god pops up(like I imagine the big fedoras were referenced when atheism was in vogue.

I agree OP, fuck analytics.

Really electrifies my oblong legumes when people try to use Kant's arguments to "disprove" God, and I'm an atheist. He repeats multiple times throughout his works that his criticisms, if valid, only show that God can't be proven to exist, not that he doesn't. There is still very much room for the revelatory faith of Hamann or the Leap of Kierkegaard.

Attached: prefer.png (415x476, 150K)

>christcuck upset that no one still wants to use the 2000+ year old philosophy that he likes because it agrees with his feefees
lmao. imagine if STEM students had this mentality

This describes the S well.

If god exists then why care?

/r/rickandmorty is that way, folks

But mathfags would get mad if a tertiary level course went integers>decimals with irrational numbers without the whole Pythagorean bit with only rational fractions being possible.

When people talk about God they are talking about the Christian/Jewish God right?

No one mentions Hinduism or any other specific God and these people can't be getting all excited about Deism (are there even any Deists left?)

You wouldn't need to bring up philosophy to refute an interpretation of God that performs miracles. Such as say the resurrection of Jesus Christ. That's really where you just point and laugh.

>reaching wether god exists or not based on logicuck conclusions

Point and laugh at those who believe the Resurrection? Or at those who don't?

Attached: hate.jpg (400x197, 5K)

Analytics, what can I say?

>He repeats multiple times throughout his works that his criticisms, if valid, only show that God can't be proven to exist
>lecturer provides Kant as the opposition to ontological argument (an argument that attempts to prove God's existence)
So he was using Kant's work correctly.

That's cool and everything but God isn't real

to be fair the ontological argument is entirely useless in analytic philosophy.

>trend following trads willing to reference Aquinas ad nauseum
Screw you, OP, that's all I know how to do.

>(Plato doesn’t exist)

Hate is thinking that anyone that doesn't believe in your superstition is going to suffer forever in fire. Which is what every Christian secretly thinks when people laugh at their religion.

Aww. The site of fedoras burning in fire while little imps jab their fat otaku asses with pitch forks. Meanwhile I'lll be up on white clouds looking down at them and laughing while getting a blowjob from an angel....than they'll be sorry.

Agnostic deist here but I'd much rather be a Christian desu

>Century old philosophical questions are now kiddy tier edgelord trends because some pseud television show mentioned it once and self-conscious faggots trip over themselves not to be associated with it
This is how I know we're being invaded by /pol/

>> lecturer provides Kant as the opposition to ontological argument(since he’s a great atheist)
>> the conclusion reached is that none of this matters, since god obviously doesn’t exist

>God isn't real
Which one?

All of them

What definition of god do you have?

prove that "essence" "form" "spirit" "substance" refer to anything in the real world. I'll be waiting.

>Hate is thinking that anyone that doesn't believe in your superstition is going to suffer forever in fire. Which is what every Christian secretly thinks when people laugh at their religion.
That's a ridiculously broad and impossible to make claim

they're not supposed to dipshit

Then it's just a self referencing set of symbols (i.e nothing.) How illuminating.

>read descartes
>spend 100 pages reading how reasonable he is
>holy shit so reasonable
>look, if you have a problem with my shit I already thought of it
>oohhhhh sooooo reasonable

>Kant claims you can't use "exists" as a predicate, aka existence can't be the property of a thing, in order to invalidate the ontological argument
>but I bet he would get butthurt when Hegel uses the same logic to claim that nothing and pure being are the same thing, since the only difference between them is that one has the property of existing.]

Adds up in taoism +=-

What's pure being? Sounds very God-ish desu.

Modal ontological argument

Look up rather than down.

It refers to conscious states.

Math is just a self-referencing set of symbols and it's pretty cool.

Hegel defines it as "immediate indeterminateness." Basically its being with no properties.