>studying philosophy instead of theology the only time philosophy

>>3252854
Using logic to search for truth>Using logic to prove what you have already decided is true

File: oatmeal.png (116KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 600x600px

>philosophy
>theology
>when there is science

File: 148810531399.gif (2MB, 200x128px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 200x128px

Theology assumes the endpoint as it's start, and thus cannot progress.

File: Werner Heisenberg.jpg (166KB, 1377x975px) Image search: [Google]

166KB, 1377x975px

>>3252913

>>3252893
I think theology can be fun in the sense that it is good for just a bit of a thought experiment and testing of ideas, but not really as legitimate as philosophy.

File: 1443417274568-1.jpg (50KB, 720x540px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 720x540px

>>3252917

>>3252913
Science does not address the questions of philosophy.

>>3252920

So Heisenberg agrees that science is infinitely superior to both theology and philosophy, and the way to find God?

>>3252920
>>3252926
These people are LITERALLY nazies

File: Confirmed autists.jpg (127KB, 494x640px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 494x640px

>>3252954
I think he was encouraging atheists to be thirsty.

>>3252954
>the way to find God?
most people find God apart from science

>>3252966

correlation causation. Seriously.

Is philosophy just making quotes that sound nice for people to use them asa shitty argument in forums?

>>3253062
Petty much. You can make up some fancy lingo too.

What do these terms even mean today? Theology is no longer part of pilosophy?

Anyway, don't see what Aquinas has to do with this. He was a Christian, hence he valued faith above truth. Stick with Classical texts.

File: 2de.jpg (12KB, 338x338px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 338x338px

>>3253093
>He was a Christian, hence he valued faith above truth.

>>3252854
God is the truth. Trying to grasp God with philosophy is like eating soup with a fork.

Furthest philosophy can get you is "five ways" of Aquinas, and that's retarded.

In his school, they were learning five ways like a crown of rational thinking, a place where rational mind starts to smell the truths of God, and after that, they would introduce Scientia Sacra aka theology, which is even more retarded.

It's intellectual masturbation on an even higher level.

Bible is written in a way that simple peasant can understand it, there's no need for advanced hermeneutics and other bollocks.

Philosophy is at least good to get you out of clutches of scientism and point you in a right direction.

Theology is autistic hipster circlejerk.

>>3253133
>In his school, they were learning five ways like a crown of rational thinking
thats not true, the 5 ways were considered simple arguments for the average laymen to use

>>3252913
>Science and Philosophy answer the same questions
ggwp thx 4 playin playa

>>3253099

I used to play baseball, but it was called rounders and I grew up

>>3253133
Having only faith, not facts in a creator, estranges the religious from the truth.

>>3253182
There are no "facts in a creator". That's the big step Christianity made in comparison to other religions, especially polytheistic religions. Christian God is transcendent, he is not a part of this world, and he is not this world. There is no way you can know anything about him, even if you try you will fail miserably (take a look at creationism for example).

You can choose either to believe or not, and from an intellectual perspective, both choices are equally valuable.

>>3253246
>from an intellectual perspective, both choices are equally valuable.
define valuable? do you mean they're both equally consistent intellectually?

>>3253276
No, I wouldn't dare to say that.Not believing is more consistent.

There is more complex idea hiding here, I was trying to simplify.

Once you exhaust intellectual tools in a search for God /and you see there is no way
to intellectually prove whether there is God or no/ you find yourself at a crossroads.

Either you think that's a proof there's no God /since the intellect is the only thing we can relly on/ and this
closes the deal(atheist).

Or you think intellect is not capable of grasping EVERYTHING /and there is a bunch of rational reasons to believe this/ and this puts you on many
other crossroads. You can still either believe (religious person) or not believe(agnostic).

But if you choose to believe, in what kind of God will you believe and what makes one kind of belief better than other.
An atheist position has a problem of denying flaws of human intellect.

The religious position has a problem of how to differentiate what belief to choose from a plethora of possible beliefs.

>>3253473
Atheism is the understanding that there is no god or any other supernatural force, nothing more or less than that.

Atheism is not a belief as belief requires the suspension of logic and rational thought, it is the lack of belief.

File: 1450765819372.png (130KB, 900x900px) Image search: [Google]

130KB, 900x900px

>>3252913
fixed

>>3252933
>This force will poison any food my wife doesn't cook. My wifes in hospital opps better starve to death then.


> he would eat only food that his wife, Adele, prepared for him. Late in 1977, she was hospitalized for six months and could no longer prepare her husband's food. In her absence, he refused to eat, eventually starving to death.[26]

>>3253628
>Engineers
>Actually finding anything
You mean fuck around with the flashlight complaining that the button is slightly wanky and was a bad design choice by his incompetent colleague ?
Anyway enough of this shitty allegory it doesn't lead anywhere

File: 15965805_1354390681269678_7022248581154374782_n.jpg (50KB, 960x775px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 960x775px

>>3252854
>He believes in absolute divine simplicity

>>3252913
>DUDE, ABSTRACT CONCEPTS CAN BE UNDERSTOOD THROUGH EMPIRICAL MEANS LMAO

Fucking brainlets, I swear.

>>3253133
Theology is basically just a subset of philosophy but presupposing a fictional superhuman as the star of the show.
>Philosophy: What is?
>Theology: What is God?