/lit/ - Literature

>>23515117
>>23515147
Because the universe mustn't have always existed because that would cause an infinite regression of change/motion in the cosmos. If there were an infinite regression, there would be no present change/motion in the cosmos. You wouldn't see an infinite set of train carriages moving without an engine (the prime mover), so the apparently 'infinite' set of carriages wouldn't be infinite. If they were infinite, they wouldn't be moving. If the cosmos were infinite going-backwards-in-time-wise, there would likewise be no change/motion, because there would be no prime mover (pure actuality) to have put to cosmos into motion (potentiality --> actuality --> potentiality, etc.). Don't think you've outsmarted Aquinas, comparable to Aritstotle himself in the realm of logic, because you've misunderstood him.

>>23449111

>>22671493
This. There's no way to refute it other than going:
>Well the universe can be uncaused because... it just CAN, okay!?!

>>22503158

Viewpoints and books on mereology? Doesn't the very existence of "being" give us an answer?

Pic unrelated (maybe)

>>22355893

Aquinas is the final boss of philosophy. None of the pseuds who came after even dared to take him on. Instead, they ignore him because his genius is overwhelming.

>>22070212
First way.

>>20465890
>The Ontological argument kinda proves the philosopher's God, but not much of how to relate with it.

That is the point of the argument, lmao

The classical approach to apologetics was always in 3 steps:

-Prove God through philosophy

- Prove Christianity through historical argument for the resurrection of Christ and the explosion of the early church.

- Prove Catholicism through church history and theology.

>>19159957
There is not a single feel in this.
It's simply logic and deduction.

Picture version for readletts.

>>18642747
>>18642762
Catholic dogma Nr. 44:
''God gives all innocent unbelievers (infideles negativi) sufficient grace to achieve eternal
salvation.''

A.k.a, if you have not heard of Christ and did good acording to God, you will be saved.

>>18234066
>What book(s) would convince me that there is a God
Summa Theologica. Have this (pic) as an intro
>AND that it should be worshipped
that I cannot answer

>>18182238
seething I see
>>18182242
based

this kills the atheist

>>18107368
Because it affects you. Anything not good is bad, thats how it works.

>>15241799

>>14584846
>>14581772
>>14592130

>>14183818
These summaries are very short, and not representative of the actual arguments, in their rigorousness.

As for your objection to the first way, it comes down to the way change is analysed. Aristotle (and thus Aquinas) views change as some potential becoming actual. e.g. ice melting is ice (potentially water) becoming actual water. This change (or motion, as Aquinas calls it) must be caused by another actuality (ice is melted by something that is actually hot). But this actuality must be converted from potential by some other object, etc. This chain must have a first element, since without it, no other motion occurs. Thus a first mover must exist.

pic related

>>14132376
It pleased the principle of existence that it should be so.

By properly I mean properly understanding the argument i.e. that it is happening in the present and not the typical 'who moved the first mover lel'

>>13800778
Time is a measure of change and therefore has a definitive beginning.
>>13802760
>Passes the buck ad infinitum
This is why infinite regresses are retarded. You can't just keep pushing back the chain of causality of the universe into infinity. There has to have been a distinct point when all existence came into being and change occurred.

>>13555054

>>10894487
The idea of a universe known to have a beginning having no uncaused cause is absurd and childish and it needs to be destroyed.