/lit/ - Literature

You can't prove any of them are necessarily correct, nor can you prove they're necessarily wrong

>>14396053
how

>>14396091
No, that's all he said. Check the Transcendental Dialectic of the CPR yourself

THE TOP FIVE THINGS AQUINAS SAID ABOUT GOD'S EXISTENCE

You won't believe what he reveled, click here to find out!

>>14396132
kek

both btfo by Parmenides and Guenon, who were in turn retroactively btfo'd by Heraclitus

>>14396132

One thing that's funny is that no one has ever justified why the first mover has to be pure actuality. I'd like someone to explain why what causes motion has to be pure actuality, because it just seems like ad hoc BS to me.

>>14396401
This

>>14396038
That's Jacobi

Critique of pure reason. You pseuds don’t read actual books do you?

>>14396401
If the first mover was not purely actual, there would be some further mover beyond it, meaning that it wouldn't really be the first mover after all.

>>14396821
why would there be a further mover beyond it

>>14396875
Because its impure actuality would imply pure or purer actualities behind it driving it forth.

>>14396875
Because if it wasn't purely actual it would have potencies that could only be actualized by a further mover. This regress must terminate in a mover that is purely actual.

>>14396972
>>14396958
this is an unjustified assertion

>>14397033
Your mom and me were an unjustified assertion until last night

>>14397134
why does the first mover have to be pure actuality

>>14396401
Edward feser did that in 5 proofs. Becuase something need to actualise a potentials potential for existence, a potential is the effect of an actualiser and not a part of it, meaning that there needs to exist a purely actual actualizer.

>>14396038
Okay, but what did Jacobi refute?

>>14397033
No, think about it. If the mover was not purely actual that would mean that it has potencies. Now these potencies could only be actualized by either (1) some other part of the mover, which would mean that that part of the mover would truly be the first mover, or (2) another mover. This regress can only terminate in a mover that is purely actual, and if we're talking about an essentially ordered causal series it must terminate in a first member.

>>14397189
why can't the first mover have potencies

i have potencies for instance but i can still actualize stuff

>>14397205
Because if it had potencies it wouldn't really be the first mover. There would be another mover beyond it that could actualize those potentialities. This series of movers could regress infinitely, but if we're talking about an essentially ordered causal series it must terminate in a first member that is purely actual, meaning that it has no potencies that any other mover could actualize.

>>14397276
Begging the question.

>>14397284
Mate, I actually thought the same for a long time. Even after I read the section on the Aristotelian Proof in Edward Feser's "Five Proofs of the Existence of God" I still didn't understand why the first mover would have to be purely actual and thought that the argument was just begging the question when it asserted that. I had some kind of a knot in my mind, but one day I just finally understood the argument. Have you read Feser's book yet? If you haven't I recommend you do.

>>14397284
Fallacy fallacy, strawman, unjustified assertion.
People that just write the name of the fallacy instead of explaining how an argument is fallacious should be put in jail.

>>14397284
You can tell this guy is a seething atheist

>>14397373
kek

>>14397354
This is Atheism 101. They abuse and overuse terms for informal logical fallacies. Informal logical fallacies are called that for a reason: they're not exemplary of logic, because they're not universal in structure. They may as well be literary devices.

>>14396038
https://discord.gg/5K6hxF9