/lit/ - Literature

ATHENIAN: Come then, if ever we needed to call upon the help of God, it’s now. Let’s take it the gods have been most pressingly invoked to assist the proof of their own existence, and let’s rely on their help as if it were a rope steadying us as we enter the deep waters of our present theme. Now when I’m under interrogation on this sort of topic, and such questions as the following are put to me, the safest replies seem to be these. Suppose someone asks ‘Sir, do all things stand still, and does nothing move? Or is precisely the opposite true? Or do some things move, while others are motionless?’ My reply will be ‘I suppose some move and others remain at rest.’ ‘So surely there must be some space in which the stationary objects remain at rest, and those in motion move?’ ‘Of course.’ ‘Some of them, presumably, will do so in one location, others in several?’ ‘Do you mean’, we shall reply, ‘that “moving in one location” is the action of objects which are able to keep their centers immobile? For instance, there are circles which are said to “stay put” even though as a whole they are revolving.’ ‘Yes.’ ‘And we appreciate that when a disk revolves like that, points near and far from the center describe circles of different radii in the same time; d their motion varies according to these radii and is proportionately quick or slow. This motion gives rise to all sorts of wonderful phenomena, because these points simultaneously traverse circles of large and small circumference at proportionately high or low speeds—an effect one might have expected to be impossible.’ ‘You’re quite right.’ ‘When you speak of motion in many locations I suppose you’re referring to objects that are always leaving one spot and moving on to another. Sometimes their motion involves only one point of contact with their successive situations, some times several, as in rolling. ‘From time to time objects meet; a moving one colliding with a stationary one disintegrates, but if it meets other objects traveling in the opposite direction they coalesce into a single intermediate substance, half one and half the other.’ ‘Yes, I agree to your statement of the case.’ ‘Further, such combination leads to an increase in bulk, while their separation leads to diminution—so long as the existing states of the objects remain unimpaired; but if either combination or separation entails the abolition of the existing state, the objects concerned are destroyed.

>>16568905
‘Now, what conditions are always present when anything is produced? Clearly, an initial impulse grows and reaches the second stage and then the third stage out of the second, finally (at the third stage) presenting percipient beings with something to perceive. This then is the process of change and alteration to which everything owes its birth. A thing exists as such so long as it is stable, but when it changes its essential state it is completely destroyed.’ So, my friends, haven’t we now classified and numbered all forms of motion, except two?
CLINIAS: Which two?
ATHENIAN: My dear chap, they are the two which constitute the real
purpose of every question we’ve asked.
CLINIAS: Try to be more explicit.
ATHENIAN: What we really had in view was soul, wasn’t it?
CLINIAS: Certainly
ATHENIAN: The one kind of motion is that which is permanently capable
of moving other things but not itself; the other is permanently capable
of moving both itself and other things by processes of combination and
separation, increase and diminution, generation and destruction. Let these
stand as two further distinct types in our complete list of motions.
CLINIAS: Agreed.
ATHENIAN: So we shall put ninth the kind which always imparts motion
to something else and is itself changed by another thing. Then there’s the
motion that moves both itself and other things, suitable for all active and
passive processes and accurately termed the source of change and motion
in all things that exist. I suppose we’ll call that the tenth.
CLINIAS: Certainly.
ATHENIAN: Now which of our (roughly) ten motions should we be justified in singling out as the most powerful and radically effective?
CLINIAS: We can’t resist the conclusion that the motion which can generate
itself is infinitely superior, and all the others are inferior to it.
ATHENIAN: Well said! So shouldn’t we correct one or two inaccuracies
in the points we’ve just made?
CLINIAS: What sort of inaccuracy do you mean?
ATHENIAN: It wasn’t quite right to call that motion the ‘tenth’.
CLINIAS: Why not?
ATHENIAN: It can be shown to be first, in ancestry as well as in power;
the next kind—although oddly enough a moment ago we called it ‘ninth’—
we’ll put second.
CLINIAS: What are you getting at?

>>16568876

>Do you agree with these arguments, /lit/?

No.

>>16568915
ATHENIAN: This: when we find one thing producing a change in another,
and that in turn affecting something else, and so forth, will there ever be,
in such a sequence, an original cause of change? How could anything
whose motion is transmitted to it from something else be the first thing
to effect an alteration? It’s impossible. In reality, when something which
has set itself moving effects an alteration in something, and that in turn
effects something else, so that the motion is transmitted to thousands
upon thousands of things one after another, the entire sequence of their
movements must surely spring from some initial principle, which can
hardly be anything except the change effected by self-generated motion.
CLINIAS: You’ve put it admirably, and your point must be allowed.
ATHENIAN: Now let’s put the point in a different way, and once again
answer our own questions: ‘Suppose the whole universe were somehow
to coalesce and come to a standstill—the theory which most of our philo-
sopher-fellows are actually bold enough to maintain—which of the motions
we have enumerated would inevitably be the first to arise in it?’ ‘Self-
generating motion, surely, because no antecedent impulse can ever be
transmitted from something else in a situation where no antecedent impulse
exists. Self-generating motion, then, is the source of all motions, and the
primary force in both stationary and moving objects, and we shan’t be able
to avoid the conclusion that it is the most ancient and the most potent of all
changes, whereas the change which is produced by something else and is
in turn transmitted to other objects, comes second.’
>CLINIAS: You’re absolutely right.

>>16568929
ATHENIAN: So now we’ve reached this point in our discussion, here’s
another question we should answer.
CLINIAS: What?
ATHENIAN: If we ever saw this phenomenon—self-generating motion—
arise in an object made of earth, water or fire (alone or in combination)
how should we describe that object’s condition?
CLINIAS: Of course, what you’re really asking me is this: when an object
moves itself, are we to say that it is ‘alive’?
ATHENIAN: That’s right.
CLINIAS: It emphatically is alive.
ATHENIAN: Well then, when we see that a thing has a soul, the situation
is exactly the same, isn’t it? We have to admit that it is alive.
CLINIAS: Yes, exactly the same.
d ATHENIAN: Now, for heaven’s sake, hold on a minute. I suppose you’d
be prepared to recognize three elements in any given thing?
CLINIAS: What do you mean?
ATHENIAN: The first point is what the object actually is, the second is the
definition of this, and the third is the name. And in addition there are two
questions to be asked about every existing thing.
CLINIAS: Two?
ATHENIAN: Sometimes we put forward the mere name and want to know
the definition, and sometimes we put forward the definition and ask for
the name.
CLINIAS: I take it the point we want to make at the moment is this.
ATHENIAN: What?
e CLINIAS: In general, things can be divided into two, and this is true of
some numbers as well. Such a number has the name ‘even’ and its definition
is ‘a number divisible into two equal parts’.
ATHENIAN: Yes, that’s the sort of thing I mean. So surely, in either case—
whether we provide the name and ask for the definition or give the definition and ask for the name—we’re referring to the same object? When we
call it ‘even’ and define it as ‘a number divisible into two’, it’s the same
thing we’re talking about.
CLINIAS: It certainly is.
896 ATHENIAN: So what’s the definition of the thing we call the soul? Surely
we can do nothing but use our formula of a moment ago: ‘motion capable
of moving itself’.
CLINIAS: Do you mean that the entity which we all call ‘soul’ is precisely
that which is defined by the expression ‘self-generating motion’?
ATHENIAN: I do. And if this is true, are we still dissatisfied? Haven’t we
got ourselves a satisfactory proof that soul is identical with the original
source of the generation and motion of all past, present and future things
and their contraries? After all, it has been shown to be the cause of all
change and motion in everything. b
CLINIAS: Dissatisfied? No! On the contrary, it has been proved up to
the hilt that soul, being the source of motion, is the most ancient thing
there is.
ATHENIAN: But when one thing is put in motion by another, it is never
thereby endowed with the power of independent self-movement. Such
derived motion will therefore come second, or as far down the list as you
fancy relegating it, being a mere change in matter that quite literally ‘has
no soul’.

>>16568933
CLINIAS: Correctly argued.
ATHENIAN: So it was an equally correct, final and complete statement of
the truth, when we said that soul is prior to matter, and that matter c
came later and takes second place. Soul is the master, and matter its
natural subject.
CLINIAS: That is indeed absolutely true.
ATHENIAN: The next step is to remember our earlier admission that if
soul were shown to be older than matter, the spiritual order of things
would be older than the material.
CLINIAS: Certainly.
ATHENIAN: So habits, customs, will, calculation, right opinion, diligence d
and memory will be prior creations to material length, breadth, depth and
strength, if (as is true) soul is prior to matter.
CLINIAS: Unavoidably.
ATHENIAN: And the next unavoidable admission, seeing that we are
going to posit soul as the cause of all things, will be that it is the cause of
good and evil, beauty and ugliness, justice and injustice and all the opposites.
CLINIAS: Of course.
ATHENIAN: And surely it’s necessary to assert that as soul resides and e
keeps control anywhere where anything is moved, it controls the heavens
as well.
CLINIAS: Naturally.
ATHENIAN: One soul, or more than one? I’ll answer for you both: more
than one. At any rate, we must not assume fewer than two: that which
does good, and that which has the opposite capacity.
CLINIAS: That’s absolutely right.
ATHENIAN: Very well, then. So soul, by virtue of its own motions, stirs
into movement everything in the heavens and on earth and in the sea.
The names of the motions of soul are: wish, reflection, diligence, counsel, 897
opinion true and false, joy and grief, cheerfulness and fear, love and hate.
Soul also uses all related or initiating motions which take over the secondary
movements of matter and stimulate everything to increase or diminish,
separate or combine, with the accompanying heat and cold, heaviness and
lightness, roughness and smoothness, white and black, bitter and sweet.

>>16568876
>Evolution refutes it
>No, I DO NOT have to prove that evolution is true!

>>16568876
Most of your friend's objections don't give Aquinas a fair shake. I think the real question on Aquinas today is whether you believe in the many worlds interpretation of quantum physics, or you think that there is just one universe and that probability waves don't exist in nature.

You need to read up, so I recommend the following article.
>https://medium.com/the-infinite-universe/i-do-not-believe-in-the-multiverse-the-case-for-realism-28084b0c285e

If the idea of infinite universes sounds like an absolutely braindead thing to propose, then you can believe in a Creator because the universe is unique, it may be huge, but there is only one universe. If you believe the radically stupid idea that there are infinite copies of you in other universes just because the interactions between fundamental particles is probabilistic, then you have to be an atheist.

But your friend's objections to argument 1 and 2 imply a multiverse. That's what he means by infinite nonrepeating patterns.

>>16568905
>>16568915
Shitposters

>>16568994
That "shitpost" is literally the first instance in history of the cosmological argument except less retarded.

>>16568905
>>16568915
>>16568929
>>16568933
>>16568952
>tl;dr?

>>16569008
>ATHENIAN: So what’s the definition of the thing we call the soul? Surely
>we can do nothing but use our formula of a moment ago: ‘motion capable
>of moving itself’.
>CLINIAS: Do you mean that the entity which we all call ‘soul’ is precisely
>that which is defined by the expression ‘self-generating motion’?
>ATHENIAN: I do. And if this is true, are we still dissatisfied? Haven’t we
>got ourselves a satisfactory proof that soul is identical with the original
>source of the generation and motion of all past, present and future things
>and their contraries? After all, it has been shown to be the cause of all
>change and motion in everything.

>>16568876
The very laws of physics demand that there be a creator god:
>Energy can be neither created nor destroyed
>All processes are driven by thermal equilibrium or entropy
The universe can't be infinitely old or it would have reached thermal equilibrium. Therefore it must be temporal and have a fixed beginning. Since under the laws of the universe natural processes can't generate matter or energy, there must be a supernatural origin to the universe. There is no other conclusion. It makes no sense for the universe to exist under its own laws.

That doesn't necessitate that the creator god wants you to chop off your foreskin or worship cows. But atheism is a position that defies logic and reason. It makes no sense.

>>16568876
There are a few arguments against the five ways:

The first three ways are all variations on the same idea. They're all logically invalid because they're presupposed on the idea that God is the exception to the general principle that all effects must have a cause, which is just special pleading. Once special pleading is admitted, any unknown being(s) or force(s) can be put in the position of being the prime mover. It's also fallacious to assume that the laws of cause and effect (which we have formulated, based on observations within our universe) have any meaning outside it.
The fourth way is the result of assuming that metaphysical properties can be quantified in the way that physical properties can be, which is debatable, it's even more debatable that there must be a single, unique, example of the zenith of a metaphysical property or that God is such a thing.
The fifth way is predicated on a misunderstanding of physics, but it still gets brought up a lot, even today. The problem is that all things that exist are ascribed (by the religious) to God. So, it isn't possible to demonstrate to a religious person that order can exist without God. All examples of natural order will be assumed to be God's handiwork. Logically, this is invalid. It's illogical to assume that a speculative entity is the cause of anything. By the same chain of reasoning, any being(s) or force(s) could be used as an explanation, there's no logically valid reason to put forth God as a more likely candidate then any other entity.

>>16569032
wtf i'm a soul believer now

>>16569038
What does the universe look like when it has reached maximum entropy?
What does universal zero entropy look like?
>Penrose goes on further to state that over enormous scales of time (beyond 10100 years), distance ceases to be meaningful as all mass breaks down into extremely red-shifted photon energy, whereupon time has no influence, and the universe continues to expand without event ∞. This period from Big Bang to infinite expansion Penrose defines as an aeon. The smooth “hairless” infinite oblivion of the previous aeon becomes the low-entropy Big Bang state of the next aeon cycle. Conformal geometry preserves the angles but not the distances of the previous aeon, allowing the new aeon universe to appear quite small at its inception as its phase space starts anew.
Makes more sense than Inflation and current big bang.

>>16568876
the easiest counter argument argument for the 5 ways is askning why must this prime mover needs to be councious in any way

>>16569070
It literally makes no sense. There is no included mechanism for how matter spontaneously comes to exist in a highly ordered state to then decay into increasingly disordered states. It's just crypto-pilpul that "Oh, all existence decays into a magical phase space which then leads into blah blah blah". Penrose needs to shut the fuck and explain how conformal geometry preserving the angles results in the universe being a fucking perpetual motion machine, which is how you're explaining it now.

>>16569084
black holes will swallow all matter, and also postulated proton decay, and dark energy. Only two of these, if not one, needs to be correct for an absolutely massless universe to be reality, when which 'when' and 'where' = 0, for all things will reach infinity. Big bangs are then the paradoxical result of something timeless reaching the end of something infinite.

>>16569038
>The universe can't be infinitely old or it would have reached thermal equilibrium
This implies that we live in a universe where there is not a big-bang - big-crunch cycle, however. You're right, the universe appears to be moving towards a trend (heat death being the eventual steady state), but we have no reason to believe that that trend has to maintain. The very existence of the universe is evidence that the universe can change. We're experiencing a period of cosmological inflation, but that's actually slowed. The rate of expansion was much greater shortly after the Big Bang than it is now. If it can change AT ALL, then we can't rule out the possibility of a reversal.

It would be impossible to confirm this by looking backwards, however, as by this very theory the "prior universe" (or rather, prior arrangement of the universe) would have been destroyed when it was mashed together to cause the Big Bang that made our universe (or rather, the current arrangement of the universe). All order would have been destroyed by the infinite compression.

>>16569084
also
https://www.bnl.gov/newsroom/news.php?a=217397
One can imagine that if the universe has always been infinite, then there'll then be infinite amount of photons, which means an infinite amount of photons will collide with an infinite amount of other photons simultaneously. Re-creating mass.

>>16569124
>>16569122
This isn't esoteric LSD hypothesizing. This is basic thermodynamics. ALL (meaning ALL) physical processes are driven by a net increase in thermal equilibrium. ALL (meaning ALL) physical processes result in energy conservation. If you or anyone has proof or substantial evidence that the laws of thermodynamics do not apply, go collect your Nobel Prize.

>>16569143
>if

>>16569060
DUMMY YOU ARE DUMB

>>16569154
>If you or anyone has proof or substantial evidence that the laws of thermodynamics do not apply, go collect your Nobel Prize.
That's exactly my point: no coherent statement can be made in either direction, either reifying some Deistic watchmaker or postulating some change in cosmological expansion. We can't disprove either possibility with what we know now, so until we gain more knowledge it's a moot discussion.

>>16569172
Apologetics have come a long way from old Aquinas.

>>16569165
>the universe isn't infinite

>>16569178
>No coherent statement can be made in either direction
Yes, there is one set of statements that can be definitively made
>Every process observed in nature results in an increase in disorder
>No process has ever been observed that results in a decrease in disorder
>No conceivable processes have ever been seriously postulated that result in a decrease in disorder that doesn't inevitably result in some later increase in disorder.
>All known processes require some amount of energy to perform a process
>In all cases this energy is converted to a less usable form

>>16569154
nobody has said the laws of thermodynamics don't apply

>>16569187
>>the universe isn't infinite

>>16569221
>closed universe where you can hypothetically return to where you started by going in a straight line

>>16569249
>hypothetically

>>16569252
except the universe expands
so even a closed universe will become infinite given infinite time

the first one does not refute shit.

>>16569265
>Given infinite time
I don't care about infinite progression from now. But there must be a finite progression before now or else entropic decay is violated, and even then that violates conservation of matter.
This also doesn't change the fact that the amount of matter in the universe is still known to be finite, even if the "size" of an infinitely expanding universe is infinite given infinite time.

>>16569079
Or, even if it is a conscious God, why it has to be the Christian one.

>>16568876
1 and 2 i dont understand or your friend doesnt, if things exist and what exists is changing something must exist which precedes the change, or else it isnt changing, and that thing cannot eternally change or else it isnt actual, if it is actual absolutely and not potential, omnipotent and not finite(changing) it is perfect/complete, more so than all other changing/uncomplete beings, it also directed the universe, not being compelled(like a potential being) to act, it must will other beings to be, and their being is their perfection/completion, and for rational beings who act willingly through self comprehension it is their perfection to act in accordance with their nature, as it is a tree to be a tree and not a table, so the first cause directs the secondary cause to exist and act in accordance with their existence/essence

what is so hard to understand

>>16569292
absolute entropy is still identical to zero entropy

>>16569328
No it isn't???

>>16568876
>evolution refutes it
Refuting something with a theory which is obviously not proven and currently in a really bad shape is pretty convinient

>>16569213
Not him, what do you mean with "disorder"?

>>16569213
This was already discussed. See >>16569124

>>16569313
In Aristotle, it isn't. There's multiple Prime Movers, around 50 of them, corresponding to the various Olympians and Titans. Aquinas says that they're angels. These arguments are usually conceptualized as billiardball universe by the pro-Aquinians and Thomists, where "God" is just the guy with the poolcue who sets the whole thing in motion, but the Prime Movers are actually constantly putting causality into the universe. He later sets up an alternative system with only one Prime Mover, but multiple movers that are the Gods (who in Aquinas are still angels), that is still constantly inputting causality into the universe.

But Aquinas spends a lot of time explaining why the Christian God is the right one. It ultimately comes down to "because the Bible says so", as Aquinas readily admits that the only book anyone ever needs is the Bible and he's only doing this to fight heretics.

>>16569327
>>16569275
I think he's trying to attack the point about the inability of an infinite historical chain of causality, but doing so in a weird way. OP needs to clarify this one for us.

>>16569395
>In science, a theory is a tested, well-substantiated, unifying explanation for a set of verified, proven factors.

>>16569434
What does it have to do with evolution?

>>16569450
> a set of verified, proven factors
evolution
> a tested, well substantiated, unifying explanation
the theory of evolution

>>16569408
It's abstract but essentially a state of relation between things that leads to more homogeneity and less reactivity. As states of things become more similar, there are less and less possible reactions.

>>16568876
>IFLscience concepts refute hard existential truths
Tell your friend he is a materialist midwit and was filtered by babby's first theological framework, please.

>>16569079
Because the Prime Mover's actions resulted in a universe conducive to the creation of conscious beings predisposed to belief in a divine being or beings

>>16569479
It wasn't tested lol

>ctrl + f "Kant"
>0 results
This board is a fucking joke, fuck Aquinas and fuck you pseuds.

>>16569607
> a universe conducive to the creation of conscious beings predisposed to belief in a divine being or beings
Why would the prime mover arrange conditions so that humans are predisposed to believe in numerous false deities? Why could he not create a race of people who believe in him and only him?

>>16569808
> Why would the prime mover arrange conditions so that humans are predisposed to believe in numerous false deities?
They aren't. Humans *worship* all sorts of "deities", a.k.a. demons, but they all, deep down, believe in God.

This is why, e.g., atheists seethe to the point of insanity against the Christian God but don't notice Buddhist or Hindu gods. You don't seethe at a figment of the imagination.

>>16569918
I very much doubt that all human civilisations believed in the Judeo-Christian God, the vast majority of them never built even a single temple to him. I think Atheists dislike Christianity because it's relevant to their lives, whereas things like Buddhism and Hinduism aren't.

>>16569778
Haven’t you heard? Kunt was retroactively refuted by Rene Guenon (pbuh). Get with the times gramps

>>16569265
>scaler planers express quantities of horizontal distance

>>16568876
>quasicrystals and other infinite nonrepeating patterns
sonething is moved to create the patterns

>3. Contingency, this is easily disproven with von nuemann machines
this counter claim easily desproven as von Neumann machines need to be described in human language

>4. Degrees, easily disproven with No Free Lunch
No free lunch doesnt disprove the fact that possibility exists before existence, or maybe im not seeing the argument here

>5. Final Cause, evolution refutes it
Evolution is a scientific fraud invented to justify nefarious agendas
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=r4sP1E1Jd_Y

It also does not follow the scientific method and heavily relies on ad hoc

Even so, I would advise you to not waste your time with atheists and materiallists in general
atheists are retarded npcs that dont realize the implications of their atheistic naturalistic materialism, so their sear their intelligence to not have to think about it

>>16569038
>That doesn't necessitate that the creator god wants you to chop off your foreskin

that was the old covenant

>>16569060
>They're all logically invalid because they're presupposed on the idea that God is the exception to the general principle that all effects must have a cause, which is just special pleading
Its not, this is where the stupidity of the atheist mind reveals itself
God has to be the uncaused being, it cannot be the universe and the unvierse is the set, the collection, of all physical things, yet nothing in this set is eternal, so the collection of finite things cannot ben infinite on itself unless it has a property that none of its elements has
Not only that, it would need to be the basis of possibility, the universe would have to ignore that it would need to be possible before it existed

>>16570169
>God has to be the uncaused being

According to whom? Anything independent of our universe is "uncaused" in the manner which this argument demands.

>>16568876
>1. The unmoved mover: not necessary, see quasicrystals and other infinite non-repeating patterns
>2. The First Cause, same argument

I don't see how that applies. There is no actually existing infinite pattern instantiated in nature. Maybe it is good to drag in the distinction between virtual and actual infinity? Otherwise he could have just said: "Numbers go on forever," but again I don't see the relevance.

>5. Final Cause, evolution refutes it

evolution does not refute final causes, God could have made the world such that creatures would evolve such that they ended up oriented towards certain ends

it's begging the question to say otherwise

>>16570112
Bluepilled

>>16569313
I think the Catholic Church teaches that God's existence can be known through reason, but the fact that He is the God described in the Bible has to come through an infusion of supernatural faith from God (i.e: it can be supported by reason, but one does not arrive at it through reason).

>>16570190
>According to whom?
Logical reasoning, the same faculty that inventesd the scientific method, the basis of the science you have turned into an idol

>>16570161
Yeah I know, I just meant that "The universe requires a supernatural creation event" and "God wants you to do X" are unrelated questions. You can know with mathematical certainty that the origins of the universe are supernatural while making 0 leaps of faith. It's a natural extrapolation of known physical laws. That there is a god who wants you to do or not do something is a very different beast.

>>16570257
It's not logical to elevate a single possibility to the level of certainty in the absence of any evidence. I would also like to add that I do not regard the scientific method as an 'idol', I believe you're confusing me with Mr Spock from the cult television program: "Star Trek".

>>16570190
>Anything independent of our universe is "uncaused"
Like the laws physics described? The issue still remains that these laws wpuld still need to be possible, theres where the Logos comes in
All people should have a deep foundation in humanities before diving into natural sciences and sayig stupid shit like i see atheists do, it would cut off 90% of the SCIENCE redditors of existence
https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2010/03/1174/

>>16570278
>It's not logical to elevate a single possibility to the level of certainty in the absence of any evidence
Evidence, if you mean scientific evidence, is limited to the constraints science has, youre waiting for something impossible, that is, to the scientific method to be applied to metaphysical problems

>>16569427
>I think he's trying to attack the point about the inability of an infinite historical chain of causality

Oh, so he's saying:

1. There are infinite non-repeating patterns
2. The proof from motion asserts that an infinite non-repeating series would be impossible
3. it IS possible, therefore the proof from motion is false

but the proof from motion is about an infinite non-repeating series which really exists, not one which is merely possible.

>>16569038
>under the laws of the universe natural processes can't generate matter or energy
Yes
>there must be a supernatural origin to the universe.
How do you know this?
>There is no other conclusion.
How do you know there is no other conclusion?
>It makes no sense for the universe to exist under its own
How do you understand what makes sense about something no one is able to understand yet?
You are making deductions about something physicists are trying to figure out, no one knows if simple human deductions apply when talking about the origin of the universe. And specifically in physics, atheism is not a position that defies logic and reason, is a position were you simply don't make horeshit assumptions. In physics God doesn't exist, there's no proof of it other than philosophers making assumptions, deductions and correlations wirh someone else's work, nothing but words with no real impact in the understanding of reality.

>>16570283
>Like the laws physics described?

No. Because those are part of our universe. It would have to be something outside our universe. I don't think anybody's in any position to speculate about what it is. I quite agree with you that people should be made to study the humanities, I think you're very right, it would keep the "I Fucking Love Science Crowd" out of the universities, where they have no place being.

>>16570270
I think I and the Church completely agree with you:
>>16570222

>>16570303
I don't expect evidence. I expect that the question will remain unanswered.

>>16568876
>The unmoved mover: not necessary, see quasicrystals and other infinite nonrepeating patterns
>The First Cause, same argument
Nanni the fuck? How does the possibility (not the actuality) of nonrepeating patterns disprove the fact that there ought to be a metaphysical first cause that causes all other change?

>Contingency, this is easily disproven with von nuemann machines
Again, what? How? How does the fact we can build self-replicating machines disprove the fact that conditioned reality must ultimately rely on an unconditioned one, lest we find ourselves in a contradiction? Maybe I'm seeing the example of Von Nuemann Machines wrong but there isn't any principle shown by them that isn't already present in self-replicating ... well ... humans.

Is your friend Dawkins or something?

>>16568876
>Final Cause, evolution refutes it
Wrong.

>>16570278
>It's not logical to elevate a single possibility
You're implying that the prime mover and God are two unrelated categories connected arbitrarily by Anon who just kinda sorta would like the connection to exist. But most traditions are pretty clear on God being the creator of everything, thus pretty much by definition the prime mover, uncaused cause etc.

>>16570309
I would assume so, which just goes back to my point: We can't get "behind" the Big Bang, so presently there's no way that we can actually know how far back the universe goes to prove it either way.

>>16570334
rejecting metaphysics out of hand is still taking a metaphysical stance

>>16570314
>How do you know this
You don't understand my comment.
All processes are driven by increases in thermal equilibrium or entropy. We know the universe has a finite amount of matter. Therefore there is a finite cap on entropy and thermal equilibrium at which the entire system is at equilibrium across all its subsections. Therefore if the level of equilibrium is always increasing, and has a finite cap, then over an infinite amount of time it would at some point reach its maximum amount of equilibrium. Since the universe is not at a holistic thermal equilibrium, it must therefore have a beginning or periodic renewal which was a finite amount of time in the past. Either of these would require the addition of ordered matter/energy into the universe (supernatural since energy is conserved). Therefore there is some supernatural component to the existence of the universe, either allowing it to exist over an infinite amount of time despite finite extent, or bringing it into existence.

>>16570402
They are unrelated. The 'Prime Mover' argument comes from Ancient Greece and was originally about the Olympians. Thomas Aquinas essentially just swapped God's name in, which shows how malleable the argument is. The Genesis creation myth doesn't even depict God as the creator of the universe. It depicts the Universe and the Earth as already existing, what God did was more akin to terraforming.

>>16570415

I'm not rejecting metaphysics at all. I'm rejecting the idea that the metaphysical problem of the prime mover has been solved by arbitrarily appointing a random Canaanite deity as the answer, without a logical proof.

>>16570469
>The 'Prime Mover' argument comes from Ancient Greece and was originally about the Olympians
So it was about creator gods.
>homas Aquinas essentially just swapped God's name in
wrapped the creator God's name in place of creator gods. Is that what you present as unrelated?
>[Genesis] depicts the Universe and the Earth as already existing,
Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

>>16570490
The literal translation of Genesis 1 is makes it incredibly obvious that "In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth" is an SUMMARY of the following content, not a PREFACE of the following. Why else would it say "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" and then six lines later "And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven." (KJV)?

>>16570490
>So it was about creator gods.
Yes. There are thousands of them from various different human cultures.
>wrapped the creator God's name in place of creator gods. Is that what you present as unrelated?
Yes, he arbitrarily chose one of the thousands, without sufficient reason.
>Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
That's a temporal clause, the actual creation of the "skies and the land" (which is the more accurate translation) begins with God creating the "Ra'qiya" or (in English) "Firmament", a few verses later.

>>16570530
You're diving into two textual traditions, the priestly and the yahwist(? or adonist idk), and while it's true that the priestly (Gen1:1) is estimated to be later, it's still how the myth goes. It's still the way the narrative exists for Christians including Thomas Aquinas.

To propose that Aquinas wasn't justified in placing his Creator God in place of pagan creator gods argument because Gen 1:1 was discovered to come from a slightly later tradition than the rest is simply fallacious.

>>16570538
>Yes, he arbitrarily chose one of the thousands
Ahh, well let me provide you with a very key information: Aquinas was a Christian. He was actually even a Christian theologian. His choice wasn't arbitrary, he proposed the God he actually believed in on place of creator gods that the original argument author believed in.
With that out of the way, I hope you now see why having creator God in place where creator gods were supposed to be is actually the smallest deviation possible.
>That's a temporal clause
See >>16570546

>>16570546
For the record I wasn't that anon. I think >>16570538 is. It's bold assuming that Aquinas interpreted it the very specific way you're saying he did, unless you know for a fact because he specifies elsewhere.
Also the only word used (in English) for the word prior to God's separating out the heavens is "the deep". Unless the literal hebrew behind that is "deep ocean", I don't think it's abundantly clear that that means the world in a literal sense was there, but could simply mean that what was therefore before God shaped it was a kind of unformed mass, similar to how the Greek myths start with the universe being Chaos.

>>16568876
Incredibly midwitted, but that's expected of anyone unfamiliar with it.
1. quasicrystals/nonrepeating patterns are not series of events, they're logical relations without any specific changes or movements occurring. They're not different from the infinitude of the set of integers, which similarly involves no motion.
3. Von Neumann machines have nothing to do with the argument- each machine can come to exist or cease existing, the pattern by which they are made is not an existing thing except as in the individual species.
4. What does increasing entropy have to do with this? This one doesn't even make sense.
I don't know enough about the 5th way to support it, I'll let everyone else have that one.
>>16570469
Aquinas makes a rather clear proof that a being defined by its existence must be unique. Monotheism is rather essential to the Aristotelian scheme.

>>16570554
>Ahh, well let me provide you with a very key information
I think you misunderstood. When I said "arbitrary" I meant objectivity arbitrary as in: "this is was not a logical deduction". I did not mean arbitrary in the sense that there was no reason for him to choose the Judeo-Christian God.
>That's a temporal clause
I think you're a little confused about the two creation accounts. Neither of them present God as the creator of space and time. The first (Yawhist, believed to be newer) account is the one with the temporal clause and it involves God terraforming the waterlogged planet. The second (Elohist, believed to be older) account starts with the world already fit for habitation and depicts God creating life on the (preexisting) Earth.

>>16568876
let me btfo you in three simple and easy steps
1. "rational" "arguments" are presumptous
2. presumptions are unfounded
3. unfounded concepts are flawed
ded(1,2,3) "rational" "arguments" are flawed

embrace the dialectic and ontological incompleteness
aquinas was an incel. zizek FUCKS

Also OP wont admit to coming up with these arguments himself for fear of being called out as a pseud on a board full of christcuck turboincels supreme. dont be a retard OP be honest
open mindedness is a virtue

>>16570572
Assuming that this proof is sound, that only proves that there is a single prime mover. It does nothing to nominate El-Shaddai as the most prominent candidate.

>>16570564
>It's bold assuming that Aquinas interpreted it the very specific way you're saying he did
Knowing quite a bit about Christian theology, I don't really see where you think he would deviate from what I'm saying or why he would discard the literal first word so of Genesis, as if he read it in Hebrew or subscribed to the theory of sources.

>>16570585
>"this is was not a logical deduction"
I think we're talking past each other, let's go step by step:
> Be Aquinas
> Handsome as hell
> Discover Aristotle's argumentation
> It includes an inductive proof of Creation and inferences about the Creator
> You find it valid, this must be how Creator actually did it
> The end.
... where exactly do you think logic should have stopped him?
I feel like you're trying to say "he should've found it valid for god named XYZ not God named YHWH" but I don't want to put silly words in your mouth, surely you're not offering me just a semantic argument.
>Neither of them present God as the creator of space and time.
The definition of 'space' and 'time' within ancient cosmologies and worldviews is not something you want to get into, Anon. It depicts him as creator of heavens and earth and that's clear enough.
>The first (Yawhist, believed to be newer) account is the one with the temporal clause
No. "P[riestly] is responsible for the first of the two creation stories in Genesis (Genesis 1)"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priestly_source
And yet again, it's extremely reaching to conclude that Aquinas subscribed to the theory of sources and decided to invalidate Gen 1:1 because it is reiterated down the line. It does not follow from what was available to him and it does not follow from what he concluded.

>>16570646
>as if he read it in Hebrew
I don't see how this is unreasonable. Presumably Aquinas has an attention span longer than 2 seconds and notices that "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" doesn't make much sense if it's a prefacing statement to God creating the heavens and the earth. Literally your only argument to this is "Yeah, obviously that makes total sense but Aquinas probably didn't think that." Why would the guy who's so intelligent he came up with five separate, logically sound proofs for the existence of a creator deity on his own not be intelligent enough to outdo Tibetan basket-weavers at language parsing?

>>16568975
That a self-portrait?

>>16570607
https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1011.htm#article3
It's not hard to find. What does the identification of said prime mover or pure existence with the God of Christianity have to do with this? I'm only arguing against your claim that the 5 ways can imply the pantheon of Olympians (or any pantheon) as easily as a monotheistic prime mover.
And yes, there's a lot of additional thinking, much of it in the summas, that associates everything Christians believe of God with Yahweh and with Jesus.

>>16570711
>>as if he read it in Hebrew
>I don't see how this is unreasonable
It is unreasonable by virtue of him reading in Latin for the most part and relying on translations from Greek language, in rare cases Greek itself. Not Hebrew.
>Presumably Aquinas has an attention span longer than 2 seconds and notices that...
Believe it or not, every theologian has noticed that. Yet it's for the first time that I hear someone proposing we should ignore literal Gen 1:1.
>Literally your only argument to this is "Yeah, obviously that makes total sense..."
It makes very little sense to skip the beginning because it's reiterated down the line (should I skip the first human creation as well?) and from the fact virtually nobody in the Christian tradition has ever done this, Aquinas has likely neither.

>>16570746
I'm not suggesting anyone ignore Gen 1:1 because it's repeated later you disingenuous moron. I'm suggesting that "God created the heavens and the earth" is not enough to ignore the section that comes after it. It does not follow with "God created the deep", it follows with "Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters."

>>16570646
>where exactly do you think logic should have stopped him?
If he was a perfectly Logical creature (which no creature is, of course) he would have stopped at point five, sentence two:
>this must be how Creator actually did it
where his natural, human expectations mislead him and cause him to replace the speculative "Prime Mover(s)" (which could be anything) with a very specific Canaanite deity. That's flawed reasoning, demonstrated by the fact that the originator of the argument didn't even consider Elohim as a possibility. Hence, it's not "Proof of God" as he touted it, it's proof of things beyond our Universe, which is a very different thing.
>surely you're not offering me just a semantic argument.
Perhaps the distinction is bigger in my mind then it is in reality. Here's my fumbling attempt to explain myself through metaphor: I accept the Drake equation as proof of extra-terrestrial life. But I do not accept that the Drake Equation proves that the "Vrillion incident" was a genuine example of aliens contacting planet Earth. The general does not prove the specific.
>The definition of 'space' and 'time' within ancient cosmologies and worldviews is not something you want to get into, Anon. It depicts him as creator of heavens and earth and that's clear enough.
I know what you mean. It's a long, boring sort of discussion and both parties leave further convinced that they are right, let's not get into it.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priestly_source
I stand corrected.
>And yet again, it's extremely reaching to conclude that Aquinas subscribed to the theory of sources
He most certainly did not, given that it was not proposed until hundreds of years after his death. But it doesn't really matter, does it? We know things about the Bible that Aquinas did not. We should reexamine his work in light of this, rather then just repeating his mistakes.

>>16570422
let me ask you something, Are you basically sayin this?: Heat death of the universe (a conjecture) means there's a real factual beginning eventhough no one knows this because this is not what the actual big bang theory says. This real factual beginning needed the addition of ordered matter/energy from something supernatural. This supernatural component is infinite.
Please tell me I'm misinterpreting you because this just sounds like hyperactive imagination. Let me understand you better, how do you know that because the universe is not at a holistic thermal equilibrium, a beginning or periodic renewal which was a finite amount of time in the past is true, real, factual, it's like you are discovering something non even the greatest minds in the field have discovered before.

>>16570775
>God created something
>That something was formless and dark
>>>> somehow this was supposed to force Aquinas to.... do what?

>>16568905
Heliocentric model and inertia disprove this

>>16570733
>What does the identification of said prime mover or pure existence with the God of Christianity have to do with this?

Everything, I should think. It's supposed to be "Proof of God" but it's actually just "Refutation of Materialism". As I said earlier in the thread, the Drake Equation proves life on other planets is a statistical certainty. But it does not prove that the "Vrillion Incident" was a genuine example of aliens contacting planet Earth. The general does not prove the specific. It's not a great metaphor, but it's the best that my limited imagination can conjure up.

>>16570779
>replace the speculative "Prime Mover(s)" (which could be anything)
You're backtracking from the fact that prime movers were established as gods to begin with.
>the originator of the argument didn't even consider Elohim as a possibility
Inconsequential.

You're essentially proposing this
> Prime mover argument could apply to thousands of gods
> Well not this one, since there are thousands of others
> Well not this one, since there are thousands of others
> Well not this one, since there are thousands of others
> Well not this one, since there are thousands of others
>...
And ultimately you contradict the very premise because you keep circling about what gods Aristotle happened to believe in. Not that they're part of the argument. But simply that Aristotle happened to believe in them.

>The general does not prove the specific.
And you may well quibble with Aquinas over whether or not the God that is the Prime Mover actually has a Son, whether or not he preferred Jews as an ethnicity etc. But the key feature of monotheist God is being the Creator. The Prime Mover argument concludes exactly that.
>We know things about the Bible that Aquinas did not. We should reexamine his work in light of this, rather then just repeating his mistakes.
Fair enough, I'm just making a point that him placing Abrahamic God in place of the Prime Mover is not arbitrary, it's the very core of monotheist faith.

>>16570811
But what's being claimed is not the particular. Aquinas argues the general, you object that the particular is unproven. I only brought up that he also proves a singular specific, but nowhere made the connection to the Christian God.
A single argument is not going to offer a proof of God, all His properties, the history of Christianity, and the Church as instituted by Him. A "proof of God" will establish a bare minimum, further arguments will establish further details.
The Drake equation is also a farcical derivation from a single data point, but that has nothing to do with the matter at hand.

>>16570314
>philosophers making assumptions, deductions and correlations wirh someone else's work, nothing but words with no real impact in the understanding of reality.
This is literally all of post-einstenian physics though

>>16570844
>You're backtracking from the fact that prime movers were established as gods to begin with.
By a man who believed in multiple Gods, he made the same mistake Aquinas did. He was presupposing facts which he had no logical reason to presume (specifically, that he knew what these Prime Movers were)
>Inconsequential
It demonstrates that the argument is not Logically valid. If it were, everybody who considered it would come to the same answer. If the argument only works when somebody tells to the answer in advance, it's not valid.
>You're essentially proposing this
I'm proposing that we assume nothing that we can't prove. Until some evidence or logical proof comes forth, all we can say with certainty is "There is something or somethings beyond this universe".
>And ultimately you contradict the very premise because you keep circling about what gods Aristotle happened to believe in.
What I'm saying is: we know there is a Prime Mover or Prime Movers. Any names or identities ascribed onto those hypothetical beings are just a result of culture. If that proof were shown to every different religion on Earth, each of them would take it as proof of their gods. So it's not a logically valid proof of Jehovah.
>But the key feature of monotheist God is being the Creator.
That's quite a broad statement. I don't think that's God's main attribute. I mean, my Great Aunt Kath has been his number one fan since 1939 and she never talks about the book of Genesis. She's more interested in collecting statues of his mother and asking him for Irish independence.

>>16570785
Let me explain this to you mathematically, it's not that complicated.

There's some function y = f(x).
We can see everything down to x = 0 and know the following about all x > 0
Entropic decay means that we know for a fact that f(x+1) < f(x)
f(x) is continuous so there's no point where, e.g., f(4) = 10 and f(4.00000...1) = 20
Y infinitely approaches 0
To summarize: y is always decreasing and there's no points where y spontaneously increases. Every step in x brings y closer to 0.
Therefore, if x is defined infinitely far back, there have been an infinite number of steps towards 0 and the system should therefore equal 0. And yet the system is not at 0, which means there must have been a finite number of steps that have elapsed. Which means the system must have a beginning that was a finite distance in the past.

>>16570858
I don't think Aquinas is arguing the general. But we'll probably have to agree to disagree about that.

>>16570934
What system?

>>16570938
Sorry, getting caught up while analogizing. Should have said f(x).

>>16570962
>>16570958
Jfc, meant to respond to this one. It's not even Wednesday yet here.

>>16570349
Nice post.

>>16568876
>1 MUH SCIENCE
>2 MUH SCIENCE
>3 MUH SCIENCE
>4 MUH SCIENCE
>5 MUH SCIENCE

Congrats on being too retarted to do metaphysics atheist friend of OP.

>>16570934
God knows why you made a function explainig entropy decay
>Which means the system must have a beginning that was a finite distance in the past.
I dont know about the "system" but if you are still talking about the origin of the universe like in here >>16569038 AGAIN please tell me HOW do you know the earliest moments of the big bang? Because you, a spacial and temporal being is claming to know how things are in a singularity were space and time lose meaning with nothing but his silly deductions, you obviously know something more that the rest of us, maybe you have your own Hadron Collider in your basement who knows. So forget about entropy decay for once and tell me HOW do you know the universe have a fixed beginning because entropy decay is not saying this nor concluding it, you are making your own hypothesis about it but you can't go further, we all can make our own silly assumptions with nothing but semantics too I guess. And no, because you understand physics it doesn't mean you understans something else beyond factual information, it means you are just playing around with concepts and semantics there's nothing real about your assumptions because you aren't doing anything at all, most probably you are just thinking really hard how to put God inside the most valid cosmological model and nothing else.

>>16571291
>too retarted
ouch

>>16571311
>literally explain how extremely basic physical principles contradict apparent evidence
>dumbass goes "Why'd you use math"?
I've explained an extraordinarily simple concept the simplest conceivable way. If you're still too retarded to understand it maybe you should spend more time studying for your geometry class. They usually start having tests around now kiddo, you don't want to fail and make your dad get the belt back out.

>>16571311
>>16571437
wait, no I thought of an easier one.
I have $100
I spend $10 a week
An infinite number of weeks have passed yet my balance isn't $0
Therefore I can conclude someone is putting money in my account

>>16571311
Imagine being btfo and getting butthurt like this, next time try to formulate an argument

>>16568876
Imagine thinking that synthetic posteriori arguments are a real refutation of metaphysical propositions when those synthetic argument presuppose metaphysical assumptions.

None of these arguments are operating at the correct level to qualify as real refutations.

>>16571437
>>16571451
I don't even know what to say. Do you understand that it doesn't work like this because no one has a proper explanation about the initial singularity? We are talking about something were spacetime is not a thing. It is a yes or no answer don't explain the same thing again. Just yes or no.

>>16571451
But an infinite amount of time has not yet passed between the Big Bang and the now. Additionally, we're very far from running out of our initial supply of energy. As far as we can tell, $100,000,000 were put into our bank account at the Big Bang, and we've been spending $1*10^-10 per day. The universe is 13.8 billion years old, and we've only spent $1.38.

bump for good discussion

>>16568876
>haha everyone know these obscure phenomena and ideas that instantly disprove Aquinas and I only need to mention them for everyone to instantly understand
>you don’t need me to explain quasicrystas... right anon?
Shut the fuck up

>>16568876
>>5. Final Cause, evolution refutes it
>using an unproven theory to refute anything philosophical
I didn't read the rest of the post, I assume it's as shit as this.

>>16569985
lmao I audibly keked