> 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.
Why would I read Aquinas when there are YouTube videos of Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris proving that God doesn't exist?
Sebastian Hughes
>that kid who's on his laptop 24/7 >somehow he doesn't understand the arguments
Isaac Myers
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.
Gavin Stewart
I agree OP, fuck analytics.
Ryan Lee
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.
>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
Cameron Hall
This describes the S well.
Nicholas Clark
If god exists then why care?
Matthew Watson
/r/rickandmorty is that way, folks
Michael Lee
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.
Jack Smith
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.
James Perry
>reaching wether god exists or not based on logicuck conclusions
Levi Rodriguez
Point and laugh at those who believe the Resurrection? Or at those who don't?
>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.
Christian Sanders
That's cool and everything but God isn't real
Benjamin Ross
to be fair the ontological argument is entirely useless in analytic philosophy.
Jackson Turner
>trend following trads willing to reference Aquinas ad nauseum Screw you, OP, that's all I know how to do.
Matthew Sullivan
>(Plato doesn’t exist)
Nathaniel Taylor
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.
Landon Williams
Agnostic deist here but I'd much rather be a Christian desu
Bentley Davis
>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/
Evan Brown
>> 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
Daniel Cook
>God isn't real Which one?
Colton Flores
All of them
David Torres
What definition of god do you have?
Noah Rivera
prove that "essence" "form" "spirit" "substance" refer to anything in the real world. I'll be waiting.
Isaac King
>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
Nicholas Howard
they're not supposed to dipshit
Matthew Martinez
Then it's just a self referencing set of symbols (i.e nothing.) How illuminating.
Ethan Cox
>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
Aaron Moore
>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.]
Robert Scott
Adds up in taoism +=-
Jace Hill
What's pure being? Sounds very God-ish desu.
Carter Cox
Modal ontological argument
Lucas Edwards
Look up rather than down.
Kayden Gutierrez
It refers to conscious states.
Gavin Sanchez
Math is just a self-referencing set of symbols and it's pretty cool.
Jason Ross
Hegel defines it as "immediate indeterminateness." Basically its being with no properties.