@CatLord @LukeAlmighty @Saber @Heil_Honkler @tomcapuder God of the philosophers?

@Jens_Rasmussen @LukeAlmighty @Saber @CatLord @Heil_Honkler @tomcapuder Rationality as primary focus argues for a God built upon the constraints of rational philosophy. The arguments for such a God are strong, because Aquinas and a ton of others wrote tomes on the matter, but the rational argument for the Christian God is slightly weaker than general prime mover "Philosophy God".

@Jens_Rasmussen @LukeAlmighty @Saber @CatLord @Heil_Honkler @tomcapuder Aquinas was not the best example to use for this because he did an excellent job joining existing philosophy into the Christian POV, although some in the East aren't as fond of him for bringing platonism into Christianity.

@BowsacNoodle @Jens_Rasmussen @LukeAlmighty @Saber @Heil_Honkler @tomcapuder >some in the East aren't as fond of him for bringing platonism into Christianity.
Lol, really? Can you elaborate?

@CatLord @Jens_Rasmussen @LukeAlmighty @Saber @Heil_Honkler @tomcapuder The criticisms I've heard have been more about the Western tradition to rationalize and intellectualize belief rather than having faith and practice as the pillar. It's not that it's "bad", but it can create an improper understanding of what BEING a Christian is. One can know The Bible and God's commandments and even have a solid rational argument for His existence, but still not BE a Christian in the sense of never practicing aspects of the faith. That's hard to explain without sounding like some kind of gatekeeper with niche exclusivity complex, but consider how many biblical scholars are atheist for an understanding of what I mean. I think it's analogous to learning construction from watching YouTube videos and This Old House and never spending time to seriously build anything beyond a birdhouse— all your knowledge is there, but without using it, are you seriously a woodworker?

From Orthodox wiki
>In the twentieth century, there was a reaction against this "Latin captivity" of the Orthodox theology (Florovosky), and Orthodox writers have emphasized the otherness of Scholasticism, defining Orthodox theology in contradistinction to it. The criticisms have focused on, among other things, the theological poverty of Scholasticism, nature, grace, the beatific vision, and Aquinas; defense of the Filioque. However, more recent scholarship has distinguished between Aquinas and the manner in which his theology was received and altered by the Schoolmen who came after him. Aquinas may be seen as the culmination of patristic tradition, rather than as the initiator of a tradition discontinuous with what came before.

@BowsacNoodle @Jens_Rasmussen @LukeAlmighty @Saber @Heil_Honkler @tomcapuder Makes a lot of sense and is a better direction to go from than the western reform direction of iconoclasm, sola scriptura, etc

@CatLord @Jens_Rasmussen @LukeAlmighty @Saber @Heil_Honkler @tomcapuder It makes sense TO ME, because I grew up steeped in the intellectual side of the church but didn't understand the spiritual side like the woodworking 'enthusiast'. It's hard to appreciate some of the spiritual aspects, for me, of more free-form faith practiced by a lot of evangelical types. I'm sure a lot of them would feel the same way about my church, or they'd get stuck on something they think is heresy (generally this is from ignorance, not in the insult or demeaning usage of the word, but they don't know "our side" of it and have never asked).

@CatLord @Jens_Rasmussen @LukeAlmighty @Saber @Heil_Honkler @tomcapuder There's a saying that the Western church is more knowledge and intellectually focused, while the eastern is more mystical and ascetic. It's more like lungs where both sides contribute to in their own way and have aspects of the other in them. Ultimately they're taking in the same thing in their own way, if that makes sense. Aquinas building a bridge to the earliest European philosophy for Christianity is kind of looked at with a "why tho?" face. Some of the East bros forget that The West was full of splinters of remnants of collapsed societies that had built themselves upon recreating The Greek and other old ways, and that presenting Christianity in this way made sense to them.

@BowsacNoodle @LukeAlmighty @Jens_Rasmussen @Saber @CatLord @Heil_Honkler @tomcapuder The conversation should end there imo. I don’t understand why anyone chooses Christianity over philosophy God. It seems like the weaker horse.

@Jens_Rasmussen @LukeAlmighty @Saber @Heil_Honkler @tomcapuder Referring to the abstract God of the Greek philosphers, Plato through Plotinus. Their description of God. IIRC, this image is mostly accurate but I don't remember Plotinus saying that there was material beyond the divine that was then evil.

@Jens_Rasmussen @LukeAlmighty @Saber @Heil_Honkler @tomcapuder Man, this looks fucking arbitrary and fanfic-like, if you haven't read the material lol.

@CatLord @LukeAlmighty @Saber @Heil_Honkler @tomcapuder The fuck is a "World soul"?
Sounds pagan.

@Jens_Rasmussen @LukeAlmighty @Saber @Heil_Honkler @tomcapuder It's the aspect of God that ordains the physical realm, AFAIK.

Greek philosophy is a common point between Christian thought and Pagan thought, in some ways, since it was definitely Pagan in character and origin but was used by the Christians for the foundations of their theology/philosophy. Pretty much every educated Neopagan, Christian, Vedic, et cetera today, loves this stuff.

@CatLord @LukeAlmighty @Saber @Heil_Honkler @tomcapuder Vedic?

@Jens_Rasmussen @LukeAlmighty @Saber @Heil_Honkler @tomcapuder The old religion of the Aryans that invaded India. There are some Vedic practitioners today. They use the Vedic texts as their source material. I know at least a couple Vedics in our circles.

@CatLord @LukeAlmighty @Saber @Heil_Honkler @tomcapuder Are they not covered by "neopagan"?
The word did sound Indian, so I suspected it was related to that region.

@Jens_Rasmussen @LukeAlmighty @Saber @Heil_Honkler @tomcapuder Yeah but that typically refers to native faith European religions. Vedic is a bit different.

@CatLord @LukeAlmighty @Saber @Heil_Honkler @tomcapuder I am also not familiar with what "kosmos" means in this context.

@Jens_Rasmussen @LukeAlmighty @Saber @Heil_Honkler @tomcapuder I don't know how to distinguish the material realm and Kosmos. Keith Woods did some videos on Plotinus that you could watch. It might sound like gibberish if you're not familiar with Plato, though. IDK. I'll find it and link it to you:

Here: youtube.com/playlist?list=PLGv-DbSbZH6Pf-mzJN-bOAbV31reevJx-

@Jens_Rasmussen @LukeAlmighty @Saber @Heil_Honkler @tomcapuder If you listen to much of Christian argument, it sounds like this, although they don't always use Greek terms or arguments exactly, of course. Christian philosophy has developed for ~2k years after the Greeks. I recently listened to a debate (actual debate not meme debate) between a Christian and an atheist that was pretty good. Then just the other day, I listened to a talk given at a Pagan conference that drew upon some of this material. It's good to read the Greeks - at least Plato, so you can understand where everyone is coming from. The Socratic dialogues are a good read.

@CatLord @Jens_Rasmussen @Saber @Heil_Honkler @tomcapuder
I seriously have no issues with people having this kind of complex view of God , but it's hard to take it as an argument, when I saw christians point at a tree saying, that it's a proof of God's existence.

Things like personal experience and direct experience with the divine aren’t really “an argument” for third parties, but they absolutely are an argument for the person experiencing them. You’re ultimately going to have to venture forth on your own in these matters. Nobody is going to give you all the answers and all the proof, not like how you’re thinking anyway.

@NEETzsche @Jens_Rasmussen @Saber @CatLord @Heil_Honkler @tomcapuder
> Nobody is going to give you all the answers and all the proof, not like how you’re thinking anyway.

I know, and that is a part, that I never had an issue with.
I get, that there is no physical proof of god in the physical world. It's a ridiculous concept. Even if there was a measurable way to cause miracles, physicists would find a way to predict it, making it a part of science.

I am here because of the infinite smugness of the christians, who wonder why pointing at a tree is not an argument... Or that saying that without god, they would go around killing people is not a good argument either...

@NEETzsche @Jens_Rasmussen @Saber @CatLord @Heil_Honkler @tomcapuder
When I think about it, it reminds me of one problem with gaming.

> Given enough time, gamers will optimalize the fun out of the game

Yes, there is a mathematically optimal way to play most games... But finding, describing it and following it perfectly is hardly the correct way to live your life.

This idea that you need to prove God comes from the Enlightenment, where the idea that if you can’t prove something is true, it is false. It’s also where this idea that “science” and religion are in some way in conflict. Trying to prove or disprove God is faggot shit. What are you going to do, test God with some ritualism like He is subordinated to some stupid rigmarole anybody can go through to invoke His name? You enter the Konami code and manna falls into your bowl?

You either believe it or you don’t, and really, the specifics of what you believe get a lot murkier once you accept the existence of God than before it, not less. I agree, Christoids who try to reduce the ineffable into something “simple” are retarded. I guess I don’t have to deal with that much, though, because I, being a Christian, only deal with comparable smugness from Reddit atheists who treat soyence like their cathedral and “peer reviewed journals” like their scripture.

I think it was Neil deGrasse Tyson who said that you can't use science to disprove the existence of God.

@Internet_Ronin @Jens_Rasmussen @NEETzsche @Saber @CatLord @Heil_Honkler @tomcapuder
Please, don't listen to "popular science"... These guys are a plague