/lit/ - Literature

Aquinas' Five ways and Ockham's razor
simple as

What about the existence of a benevolent God?

>>19988915
Wrong board, fedoralord.

Also, yes, but I'm not going to spoonfeed a nigger like you.

>>19989020
Aquinas was a brainlet with terrible arguments. God goes against Ockam's razor since it doesn't explain anything and even adds unnecessary complexity.

>>19989214
Edgy

>>19989226
How?

>>19989236
>aquinas is a brainlet

>>19989239
How is that edgy? It's calling a spade a spade. How can anyone read his arguments and consider them intellectual? it's like the most superficial reasoning imaginable.
>Everything has a creator, a child can't exist without a father so the universe must have a creator too
>Who created the?
>He doesn't need one
>why?
>Just cause
It's laughable "logic"

>>19988915
Gödel's onthological proof

>>19989268
You found out about it on 4chan last month and don’t actually understand it

>>19989267
imagine calling Aquinas a brainlet while using the "who created God" argument in the same breath

>>19988915
Mathematics.

Only a god can create such perfection so that a^2 + b^2 = c^2 for right triangles is always true. No matter the number. Mathematics is the language of gods

>>19989616
It's the one argument you morons can never refute because it destroys your whole logic. No amount of sophistry and semantics can overcome it this basic fact and deep down you know you are just rationalizing. Anyone who unironically believes they can make an argument for a creator based on "everything needs a creator" but then conveniently exclude "the creator" out of that premise is an imbecile. It's useless hand-wavy logic that does not explain anything. The whole premise of "everything needing a creator" is so shallow, anthropocentered and void of any scientific understanding of the universe, it can't be anything close to the truth.

>>19989659
What? perfect right triangles barely exist in nature. It's a shape and concept we came up with to measure objects in segmented chunks.

Someday, the last metaphysicist will die, and everyone will agree, that was a waste of time.

>>19989020
This thread will reach 300 replies and these two will be the only book recs

>>19988915
humans instinctively developed religious belief
it is conceivable that a world could have existed in which humans did not conceive of religious belief
why would humans develop religious belief if the spiritual did not exist?
it is also possible to conceive of both Descartes' mind without body and Chalmers' p-zombies, which indicates that dualism is true

>>19989774
Everything needs a creator except God, this is clearly explained in the five ways. You would know this if you actually read Aquinas but you are more interested in coming here with wikipedia-level understanding to "BTFO le theists" instead of sincere knowledge. Read Aquinas instead of coming here to muddy discussion with your retarded claims.

>>19989797
>why would humans develop religious belief if the spiritual did not exist?
Fear of death? A way to understand the world around them? Countless conceivable reasons really. By this logic, anything imagined can be considered true, because there is a world conceivable where that thing is not imagined. Stating an idea to be true based on just the existence of the idea itself seems like really faulty thinking.

>>19989796
This guy speaks the truth. Pic unrelated I just find it funny.

>>19989806
>Everything needs a creator except God
Why? Why is this this God excluded out of the premise? if God doesn't need a creator, why does the Universe? According to Aquinas himself, God is perfect in every way, so as such ,he's also more complex than anything in the known universe, if he doesn't need a creator why does the universe?
>this is clearly explained in the five ways
No it isn't. There is some bullshit about infinite chains but there doesn't even need to be a chain in the first place. All of his five ways are really dumb and devoid of any deeper logic. Dude literally just saw that humans create things and then projected it onto the universe, even though we know nature is capable of creating complex forms naturally through the course of millions of years. Maybe it was intellectual for its time before we had any real perspective on the universe but it's just silly now.
Go ahead, try to "Explain" his arguments to me if you think they actually prove anything. There may be some legitimate arguments you can use for God, but Aquinas' bullshit certainly isn't one.

>>19988915
The technological singularity implies that Deism is true. We live in a simulation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxYbA1pt8LA

>>19989267
The irony of you calling Aquinas a brainlet then going on to misrepresent his argument in the dumbest way possible. Please read this:

http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/07/so-you-think-you-understand.html

Mandatory reading for any atheist before they ever write anything about cosmological arguments.

As for the topic the books I recommend are:

1. Five Proofs of God - Ed Feser
Good starting point for anyone looking to dive in. Explains five different traditional arguments for God in exhaustive detail. You might not be convinced but at the very least by the end of the book you'll understand the arguments properly.

2. Proofs of God - Matthew Levering
Another good book to build context. Goes through the history of arguments for God from Plato all the way up to modern Protestant Christians like Barth.

3. Returning to Reality: Christian Platonism for our Times
The real hard hitting stuff starts here. An attack on the mindless naive empirical worldview that has taken hold of western culture and an explanation of why we need to return to a Platonic metaphysics

4. The Experience of God & Atheist Delusions - David Bentley Hart
A one two punch that no atheist has ever replied to, nor will they ever because DBHs argument in these two books is air tight. In a sense all the previous books are to prepare you for these two that will slap the materialism out of you and start getting you asking the real questions about how tenable atheism really is given it's logical conclusions. If you finish both of these and feel confident move on to the Beauty of the Infinite to start dipping your toes into real Christian Theology.

>>19989912
How did I misinterpret his arguments? Please give a decent counterargument if you have one. Just saying I misunderstood his arguments and then recommending a bunch of books just seems like you're running away. If there is a good argument in any of these books that refutes what I said, surely you should be able to present it here?

>>19989037
the Problem of Good

>>19989912
Supplemental Readings:

New Proofs for the Existence of God - Robert Spitzer

A Certain Faith - Barry Pealman

Cosmos: The World and the Glory of God - Louis Bouyer

The Tragedy of Philosophy - Sergei Bulgakov

The Unknowable - SL Frank

Science & Myth - Wolfgang Smith

>>19989866
That's begging the question.
For all we know we're about to hit technological stagnation.

>>19989912
>edward feser
lol

Anyways Aristotle makes a good argument for the Olympians.

>>19989927
>How did I misinterpret his arguments?
"Everything has a creator" is not a premise of the argument. Read the link I posted it explains it in detail.

Lots of people – probably most people who have an opinion on the matter – think that the cosmological argument goes like this: Everything has a cause; so the universe has a cause; so God exists. They then have no trouble at all poking holes in it. If everything has a cause, then what caused God? Why assume in the first place that everything has to have a cause? Why assume the cause is God? Etc.

Here’s the funny thing, though. People who attack this argument never tell you where they got it from. They never quote anyone defending it. There’s a reason for that. The reason is that none of the best-known proponents of the cosmological argument in the history of philosophy and theology ever gave this stupid argument. Not Plato, not Aristotle, not al-Ghazali, not Maimonides, not Aquinas, not Duns Scotus, not Leibniz, not Samuel Clarke, not Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, not Mortimer Adler, not William Lane Craig, not Richard Swinburne. And not anyone else either, as far as I know. (Your Pastor Bob doesn’t count. I mean no one among prominent philosophers.) And yet it is constantly presented, not only by popular writers but even by some professional philosophers, as if it were “the” “basic” version of the cosmological argument, and as if every other version were essentially just a variation on it.

>>19988915

>>19989947
>People who attack this argument never tell you where they got it from
Sure they do, they get it from Edward Feser and Aquinas. You got it from image macros from eightchan's /christ/ board. This is why you think that the Five Ways are anything more than rhetorical parlor tricks so that Christians could demonstrate to Muslims and Jews that they weren't atheists.

>>19989858
Reality coming from nothing and going to nothing is an absurd position.
It precludes the possibility of knowledge and thus you can't even make that claim since any knowledge would be impossible.

>>19989947
It's about metaphysical "dependence", not some causal creation concept, as I understood it.

>>19989957
>Reality coming from nothing and going to nothing is an absurd position.
So you side with Aristotle, and against Aquinas, in favor of an eternal uncreated world.

>>19989953
>Sure they do, they get it from Edward Feser and Aquinas
That's actually a quote from the link I posted written by Ed Feser. This is why it's important to take the time to understand arguments before you start to deboonk them because "everything has a cause" is not and has never been part of the cosmological argument. You're rapidly approaching atheist midwittery with the way you're trying to deflect from the fact you didn't understand the argument you said you were sure was bad.

>>19988915
if god is so good how come there isnt a god part 2?
atheists 1
CRINGEstians 0

>>19989797
Spiritual belief is a cope for existential terror

>>19989953
>That's not part of the argument
>Actually it is Aquinas said it, this atheist blog said so!
You've never read the five arguments and are getting BTFO because of it.

>>19989960
Yeah, I agree, Feser having deeply held opinions on books that he's never read is pretty silly, but then he's a self described leftcath so it's just one of many reasons that people laugh at him and don't take him seriously.

>>19989970
I'm not sure what you mean, are you accusing Aquinas of being an atheist? I don't see what your problem with them is, you yourself cite historyforatheists all the time.

If you want to read Aquinas's views on the matter, you can read them here: https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm#article3.. The Latin is as follows: http://www.corpusthomisticum.org/sth1002.html#28315..

>>19989972
https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm
Article 3. Quote the part where Aquinas says all things have a cause. If you cannot or post again trying to deflect I'll take that as an admission of defeat.

>>19989947
>second way is from the nature of the efficient cause. In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or only one. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.
From Summa theologica by Thomas Aquinas

>>19989979
Doesn't say once there that everything has a cause. For an obvious reason the argument wouldn't work if he posited that everything has a cause. Maybe you're misinterpreting "In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes" as "everything has a cause" but it's clear that finding an order of efficient causes in nature is not the same as all things having a cause and Aquinas was careful not to suggest that very thing.

>>19989947
Most theists use this argument. Muslims and christians constantly use it, and it is attributed ti Aquinas. I have no issue with arguments for Gid, but this is such a shit argument, it's basically shooting yourself in the foot whenever anyone uses it.

>>19989992
>Most theists use this argument
No they don't. You're only proving that atheists by and large are not intelligent enough to actually follow the logic of a philosophical argument. "Everything has a cause" is not and has never been a premise in ANY cosmological argument and if anyone says otherwise then they simply don't understand what they're talking about. Do you really think that "everything has a cause" would be a premise in an argument explicitly constructed to prove that there must be an uncaused cause? It shouldn't take too much brain power to understand that the premise atheists keep claiming is key is directly contradictory to the conclusion of the argument that there is an uncaused thing and it's God.

>>19989959
No.
An eternal uncreated world wouldn't make sense because it would put Creation on the same level as Uncreation and lead to the problems of monism.
Also Aquinas's absolute divine simplicity and actus puris also leads to the same conclusion since God is always creating thus Creation is an eternal uncreated world.
I hold the Orthodox view that Reality is a possible (logical) world of the Divine Mind, created separate from God by his own free will, and can only fully be understood by us by cooperating with God's uncreated energies.
It's the only theo-political worldview that allows for the justification of the possibility of knowledge. Otherwise you're stuck with the One and the Many problem of monism (illusory knowledge), dualism (dialectic tension), and pluralism (relativistism). You'd need a coherent and cohesive trinitarian theology to support why the one and many can both coexist in unity but without modal collapse.

>>19988915
i am currently writing my manifesto which will indisputably prove the existence of God so thoroughly that atheism will cease to exist worldwide

>>19989999
>theo-political
*theo-philosophical

>>19989986
Ah, there's your problem, you don't understand what "cause" means in the Aristotelian context.

Aristotle postulated four causes, material, formal, efficient, and final. Material is what the thing is made out of (this can be abstract with stuff like poetry), formal is the design or schematic that it follows (LOOSELY it's "form", but that is the translation of a different concept in Aristotle), efficient is what actually makes it occur (this is the one that translates most accurately to the English "cause" which means "that which makes something happen or exist"), and final is it's telos (it's "reason for being").

So, when Aquinas says
>There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself
he's actually saying exactly what you're trying to argue that he isn't saying: there is no case known in which a thing makes itself exist; all things exist (have an efficient cause) in something else.

>>19989999
>An eternal uncreated world wouldn't make sense
I think that you should reconsider this one, Aristotle spent a lot of time demonstrating that you are wrong here.

>the problems of monism.
The alternative is Yahweh poofing into existence from nowhere out of nothing for no reason, or an infinite chain of Yahwehs in both directions.

>>19989659
Mathamatics is beyond God. The totality of all possible true mathamatics is total and true eternally in any and every possible reality

>>19989999
For what it's worth Aquinas says that the cosmos being created is an article of faith and cannot be rationally demonstrated, so getting into arguments over whether the universe had a beginning or is eternal is pointless since it's something you accept on faith in revelation, not as an argument of reason.

https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1046.htm

>On the contrary, The articles of faith cannot be proved demonstratively, because faith is of things "that appear not" (Hebrews 11:1). But that God is the Creator of the world: hence that the world began, is an article of faith; for we say, "I believe in one God," etc. And again, Gregory says (Hom. i in Ezech.), that Moses prophesied of the past, saying, "In the beginning God created heaven and earth": in which words the newness of the world is stated. Therefore the newness of the world is known only by revelation; and therefore it cannot be proved demonstratively.

>I answer that, By faith alone do we hold, and by no demonstration can it be proved, that the world did not always exist, as was said above of the mystery of the Trinity (I:32:1. The reason of this is that the newness of the world cannot be demonstrated on the part of the world itself.

>>19989774
You clearly have never read Aquinas argument.

>>19990015
Also, Aristotle spends a lot of time arguing for an eternal uncreated world that isn't a monistic one.

>>19989998
aquinas literally says that everything sans the jew volcano demon has to have a cause in article 3 of the summa
https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm
>In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or only one. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.
>There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself;

>>19990011
I know the Aristotelian causes. Aquinas specifically says efficient cause which is synonymous with the modern understanding of cause being one thing acting upon another.

>he's actually saying exactly what you're trying to argue that he isn't saying: there is no case known in which a thing makes itself exist; all things exist (have an efficient cause) in something else.
You're going beyond what he's saying there. Saying that nothing causes itself is not the same as saying "all things have a cause". Again I point out the conclusion of the argument is that God is uncaused and there MUST be an uncaused thing so why would Aquinas start with a premise that EVERYTHING must have a cause when he's attempting to show that God DOESN'T have a cause? The whole point is to avoid infinite regress.

>>19990024
See >>19990029
>Saying that nothing causes itself is not the same as saying "all things have a cause"

>>19989947
So instead of blabbering on and on about why they are wrong provide some statements as to what the are wrong about, and how your understanding of the argument is superior, we are here to talk now, not read 5 books and talk later

>>19990035
Your understanding is so poor that talking to you wouldn't accomplish anything. It would be better if you read the books first, otherwise I have no interest in spending my weekend educating random fedora tippers who are arguing in bad faith in the first place. The reading list is in the thread.

>>19990029
So then you agree, Aquinas is saying that all things have a(n efficient) cause, you're just quibbling about the "everything" part because Yahweh is included in "everything". You're therefore required to either admit that he does (in which case, you get an infinite regress of Yahwehs), or you're required to admit that Yahweh poofed into existence from nowhere out of nowhere from nothing for no reason, OR you're required to admit that the universe exists in such a manner that Yahweh is not necessary and we can (loosely) describe it as "uncreated" which throws out the necessity of Yahweh's existence.

The problem here is, firstly, you didn't read anyone's posts pointing this out to you, and secondly that you're new to this topic so you aren't aware that not only did Aristotle account for this (he actually addresses this essentially directly), but also that Aquinas himself was almost excommunicated for introducing this very problem. Do you see the problem with going off all half cocked and full of LARP, now? You've gotten angry and made a fool of yourself in front of everyone.

>>19989986
That doesn't change much. It's still saying everything needs an efficient cause and that a first cause is needed for any causes. Why? who knows. God is still the first cause who for some reason does not need an efficient cause of its own unlike everything in "nature", because "it is not possible to go to infinity". It's still the same argument of him seeing the stuff around him requiring causes and then projecting that onto the whole universe.

>>19990034
yes it is and to argue otherwise is counter to your goal because the solution is causal chains through time which means that the jew volcano demon doesnt have to exist

>>19989944
FTFY

>>19990015
>I think that you should reconsider this one, Aristotle spent a lot of time demonstrating that you are wrong here.
How so?
If it's eternal an uncreated then time would be a series of infinite events that would ontologically never reach the present.
>The alternative is Yahweh poofing into existence from nowhere out of nothing for no reason, or an infinite chain of Yahwehs in both directions.
You're assuming God has no personhood and will; but is merely a force with no telos or teleology behind it. Orthodox theology is clear on it's Trinitarian Theology of Essence/Energy distinction where God has one essence but three Persons.
Creation exists because God saw a possible world in his omniscience that he loved and created it out of love. Not monistic self-love (which isn't really love) but love for things which aren't Him but could be like Him. Under this model, we have purpose, meaning, and aim on an ontological level without absurdity.
We can describe why the human condition can be irrationally absurd (The Fall) but also why we can still know immutable and perennial truths.

>>19989780
You're a dumbass

Rene Descartes already answered this

>>19990055
All the low hanging fruit has been plucked.
We're hitting the walls of physical reality with our innovation and eventually our ability to solve problems will linearize as our problems still remain non-linear.
Moore's Law coming to an end as we hit atomic scale is a good example of this reality. Hoping for breakthroughs in quantum magic is copium and not a strong argument (slippery slope).

>>19990048
>So then you agree, Aquinas is saying that all things have a(n efficient) cause
No, because he doesn't say that, nor is it implied.

1. Things have a cause
2. Nothing causes itself
3. All things have a cause

You're claiming 2 must imply 3 but just because nothing causes itself doesn't follow on to "all things have a cause". Have you never heard of the term "uncaused cause"? You're missing the point that Aquinas is saying God is uncaused. Not self caused. Not caused by anything outside himself. Uncaused.

>It's still saying everything needs an efficient cause and that a first cause is needed for any causes. Why? who knows.
Aquinas explains that in the part you quoted.
>Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false.

>>19989986
What's he mean by efficient cause

Here you go, OP.

>>19990068
Efficient cause is the same as the modern understanding of cause. Cause in Aristotle's philosophy is broader because "cause" is understood to mean "why something is the way it is" and that includes things such as the material it's made of and the reason for which it was made that way.

>>19990070
You found out about it on 4chan last month and don’t actually understand it

>>19990019
>For what it's worth Aquinas says that the cosmos being created is an article of faith and cannot be rationally demonstrated, so getting into arguments over whether the universe had a beginning or is eternal is pointless since it's something you accept on faith in revelation, not as an argument of reason.
Sure, and that's why I reject Natural Theology as a means to understand God. You're just studying created effects and could come to any conclusion of who that God is and ultimately ending up with atheism as studying created effects become no different naturalism.
The only justifiable account is for God to reveal to us why, such as through the biblical accounts or through cooperating with His divine energies to understand further revelation. We can't presume ourselves to be God and know His thinking, but God obviously wants us to know His thinking and how to change ourselves to see and think like Him. Else Christ wouldn't have incarnated in this reality and we'd have no prototype of a God-Man to emulate; this reality wouldn't have been created in the first place and would've just been another possible world in the divine mind.

>>19990058
>How so?
By virtue of pluralism.

Aristotle argues that the world is at the center of the universe, and surrounding it are the Gods which are the planets, which are the Unmoved Movers, of which there are 47-55. All sublunar (the moon is the first planet and thus the first God) matter is made up of the first four elements (water, air, fire, earth), but the Gods are made up of the fifth element, Aether. Aether has a number of unique properties, namely that it moves in circles (it should be noted that this is NOT centripedation around a central point, it just moves in circles) and has a bunch of properties, namely being frictionless and not being subjected to gravity (Aristotle actually posits that gravity is an effect of motion and rest, but whatever). Aether also cannot be affected by sublunar matter, but it can affect sublunar matter.

As the Gods move, they pull along their Sphere (a big sphere around the Earth); this causes things. This is how causality happens. You know how all things have causes? Those causes are ultimately sourced to the Gods. The Gods, being purely rational, are engaged in the most rational of all activities: endless self contemplation. They are eternal, and have never stopped self-contemplating; this keeps them existing and moving ("unmoved" means that they cannot BE MOVED by an outside force, they can totally move of their own rational will). What Aristotle is proposing here is thus actually the "Yahweh is uncreated and thus the Earth also can be too", just for 47-55 instead of 1. The final God is Zeus, who is the Primary Mover because he moves the heavens.

While your bit about time can be argued against from a monistic perspective, Aristotle gets around it by arguing that time (and space) are finitely divisible and that time is ultimately, in a sense, caused by motion. This would mean that time is caused by the endless self contemplation of the Gods, which is a rather dull answer, but much like "natural teloses exist and they come from the Gods shining them out throughout reality", it is an answer none the less.

>>19990066
>anon realizes that five tricks mean to get rabbis and imams to stop calling christfags fedoras arent serious arguments
Lmfao

Learning science is the best evidence for God. Read about the big bang and realize a creator is the only thing that makes scientific sense.

>>19990011
Could he have been thinking if the universe as a whole system, that if every little thing on earth has a cause, then he looks at the big picture, of seeing the total whole, he is figuring that that total whole must have been caused to exist the way it does by some act? Scientests come to the same conclusion just they dont prescribe concious intelligence to the nature of that act, but recognize likely the universe as a total whole related system, was birthed as such at a singular place and moment.

I don't know much further to say at that point in the convo, will await response to that, I do think it remarkably profound if it is the case that scientests can see remnants of the big bang, I think the big bang would be greater evidence for God than if they believed in an eternal universe existing the way we see it.

I don't think the evidence for seeing background radiation is solely good enough for big bang theory.

I don't think universe expansion, acceleratedly for that matter, is sufficiently proven, nor would it be sufficient evidence that all matter and energy was sourced, relatively not too long enough on an eternal timescale, together "in the same point" thats when the theories get grotesquely absurd, learning about these eternally apriori truly illogical fallacies in 9th grade physics ruined my life.

>>19990017
>Mathamatics is beyond God. The totality of all possible true mathamatics is total and true eternally in any and every possible reality
Of course something like mind/conciousness is required to know mathamatics

>>19990125
The Big Bang does not suggest there was nothing before it, we just can't see past that point and over observable universe started from the point. the whole universe may very well be much bigger, even infinite

>>19990141
Even if it's infinite there would have to be the first cause. Even then there is no such thing as infinite so it's just as big of a leap as there being a God

>>19990065
100,000 renewable energy Tesla battery powered AIs all hooked up to DeepMind with extremeties that can move at the speed of sound, and be as delicate as surgical robots, all equiped with jetpacks?

>>19990147
>Even if it's infinite there would have to be the first cause
There's no reason to assume this, we're literally out of our depth when it comes to anything before the big bang
>Even then there is no such thing as infinite
How so? The universe is expanding into something and we know the actual universe is bigger than our observable universe, it may very well be infinite, as hard as that concept is to grasp for the human mind.

>>19990170
Even if it was infinite it would have to be caused. To say something just "is" and is also "eternal" is a supernatural concept and not based in science. You're literally just writing fiction

> it may very well be infinite,
Why is there nothing else that is infinite except maybe things we don't know? You're claiming something that has no evidence no scientific proof at all. Knowing this how can you be so strong on any of your beliefs?

>>19990141
>The Big Bang does not suggest there was nothing before it, we just can't see past that point and over observable universe started from the point. the whole universe may very well be much bigger, even infinite
To touch on your last line first: it cannot be infinite in quantity, that is an apriori eternal impossibility: there cannot exist an unquantifiable quantity of quanta. Energy cannot be created or destroyed = there exists an amount of energy, always has, always will.

This is the insane paradox that troubles all these arguments and thinking.

To finalize those thoughts again: the universe is not nothing, the universe is stuff. Infinite implies at a single moment or every moment in time a never ending quantity: it makes no definitional, coherent, sense to suggest at any single moment in time there can exist a quantity of various stuff without number.

We can't see anything near the vision of a big bang starting point: the big bang is posited by saying:

For 70 years we telescoped areas of space, and it looks like the galaxies moved a little, and increasing speed; therefore all the material and energy of the universe, all the galaxies were in a 1 dimensional point a couple billion years ago.

That everything started from a single point would be the greatest evidence by far for the existence of God in human history. The precise time and place God pressed on and play.

There is way more evidence that energy and matter just floats around forever, galaxies implode and explode, create new ones, which implode or explode etc so on

100 billion or trillion earth orbits around the sun are nothing compared to eternity, to think a couple billion years ago was the first time anything universal and coherent ever happened; and if this universe isn't the first time a universe could have happened, then this leaves the door open to a universe having happened before, and intelligent entities arising in it, that could make their own version of universes.

>>19989214
>Aquinas was a brainlet
>clearly knows nothing about Aquinas
t.fedoratard

>>19990188
>To say something just "is" and is also "eternal" is a supernatural concept and not based in science
No, Science has never said the universe can't be eternal, before the Big Bang theory, that was the consensus, and many scientists are coming back to that. There are some popular theories that suggest that universe goes through cycles and the Big bang was the beginning of another cycle but we're easily into theoretical physics by that point. When talking about the nature of the universe as a whole, our human comprehension basically breaks down. The Big Bang itself suggest that everything in our observable universe was once compressed to the size of an atom, how do you even grasp that concept? Let alone what was before that?
> Knowing this how can you be so strong on any of your beliefs?
I don't have any "beliefs" on this matter, we don't know if the universe is infinite. I think there were some mathematical proofs but ultimately the only thing within our scope right now is our observable universe, nothing more

>>19990215
Read the thread dumbass

>>19989774
>God is the uncaused cause.
>LOL BUT WHO CREATED GOD THEN (((SCHOOLBOY RESPONSE)))
>its not logical! Etc etc
You’re the only true brainlet here. You completely misunderstood such a simple argument.

>>19990219
>but ultimately the only thing within our scope right now is our observable universe, nothing more
Exactly and I use the observable universe for my beliefs. I don't invent science fiction concepts that could possibly maybe be true even though we have no evidence.

>>19990206
>that is an apriori eternal impossibility: there cannot exist an unquantifiable quantity of quanta. Energy cannot be created or destroyed = there exists an amount of energy, always has, always will.
You're talking about the rules of our observable universe. Rules which break down past the Big Bang, since they were created at that time. What makes you think you can understand what exists beyond that with them

>>19990227
Schoolboy response that no one has successfully provided a counterargument for. That speaks more to how a pathetic the argument is when a schoolboy can break it down so easily
also
>>19990225

>>19990170
Please differentiate what you mean by infinite next time; I responded in a post above believing you meant as the universe is infinite that the quantity of material is infinite, but I see you may have been referring that space is infinite, which does bring us to a very interesting aspect, that of the nature of gravity, and how it as general relativity is as true as it seems to be, curvable warpable bendable space must be substance of some sort, there for there must be a possible distinction between said gravity medium material space we are familiar with, and any possible notion of pure space posesing no material energy medium or fields of any sort.

There is no reason to assume outside the universe of galaxies amid gravity space, does not exist endless pure space, unless outside the universe is Gods realm, which we still might posit outside Gods realm must or might exist pure space.

If not Gods realm, but infinite pure space, then we are in the interesting pondering of how the nature of the gravity medium interacts with the pure space at the edges of the universe (minding there cannot exist now an infinite quantity of galaxies, there must be edges), so the very nature of that interaction could be having a profound effect on the universe; if they gravity space stretches spills and tears out and falls apart or stays stable when it hits that pure space, or if it solidifies and recoils inwards, and further the nature of light when it might approach that edge.

Further more as was even writ in the bible, as we know from computer simulations a trillion computations can occur in seconds, a thousand computers can do trillions if computations in seconds, if the universe to Gods computer a billion universe years could be seconds to God

>thread about god
>ctrl+f Kant
>no results
No wonder you fags still argue about such dated topics, none of you actually study philosophy.

>>19990160
>100,000 renewable energy Tesla battery powered AIs all hooked up to DeepMind with extremeties that can move at the speed of sound, and be as delicate as surgical robots, all equiped with jetpacks?
Forget the treaties and mad about nukes, start working on the superintelligent super strong ai robot clone army treaties

>>19990343
It's your big chance to enlighten us anon, god will smile upon you

>>19990206
>That everything started from a single point would be the greatest evidence by far for the existence of God in human history. The precise time and place God pressed on and play.

Scientests, physisist, cosmologists, struggling with that eternal paradox, didn't like to think if how the universe might have been before the big bang, they also were uncomfortable positing it might have just been floating around a lot lot longer, and the causal chain of regress may be murkier then a nice and tidy everything was at one point and exploded /expanded

But as I knew in 9th grade, that moment that put me in great horror and shock, that my supposed careful responsible superiors were confidently telling me this making me from that day an extremely paranoid skeptic; that not only all the atoms and energy of earth or sun and system, but of all galaxies!!! Bahhh existed in a not even decently reasonably sized 3d space, but nessecerily a 1d or 0d space,...what the fuck what the fuck are you thinking who the fuck passed off on this and said that possibly makes any amount of sense.

From our observations there is no evidence that some central point big bang occured, I would be the first one to be excstatically jumping up and down if there was a single shred of evidence of the big bang, because I think it would be cool if God existed and if all energy and matter existed impossibly in 1d point, then the only explanation then would be God. Because apriori eternally space is not infinitesimal, Zeno's paradox and all is solved certainly, so on face value certainly real tangible energy and material even a trillion trillion atoms worth let alone a trillion trillion trillion worth could not fit in "" the same space"'' what ever that means.

It has been some years since I looked into big bang theory, have they since updated the 1d initial starting point theory?

If there was no evidence of big bang theory what would cosmologists have done? Uhh we see a lot of different galaxies, I geuss reality is just these galaxies spin around forever? I geuss they've always been doing this?

And if they haven't always been doing this? They must have been in some simpler state right?

And the simplest state to imagine is squishing all the galaxies together, so I'd this universe system had a start, which it must have had right, the start must have been all the galaxies stuff squished together.

Then if that's the start, all that ball of squished stuff, expanded and turned into galaxies.

How did that ball of squished Galaxy stuff get there? Well we tried to escape infinite eternity by squishing everything to make a starting point to begin with; so either this was the first time anything ever happened in eternal history, and a universe worth of stuff popped out of nowhere, or a universe worth of stuff somehow has always existed and maybe it goes into a squishy ball and explodes, goes into ball and explodes.

>>19990486
The eternal paradox something always having existed is fucked, fucking fucked, the impossible to grasp connundrum.

So how far on the timeline of eternity are we, a billion years from the first universal order? A trillion trillion years? A trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion years? A trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion more than the previous amount?

Holy fuck. The universe is huge. The world is huge. The sun is huger. There are billions of suns in the Galaxy. There are billions of galaxy's. There are billions of atoms as you. There are how many atoms in one galaxy. The same type of atoms exist in the other galaxies. Stars and their light exist in the same ways in other galaxies. Fuck fuck fuck fuck.

Holy shit. What the fuck.

>>19990486
>>19990492
You okay there anon?

Threadly reminder that the God that can be argued for is not the real God.

>>19988915

>>19989945
Aristotle was a monotheist...

>>19990343
>Kant
Refuted by every single philosopher after him.

>>19990486
>>19990492
So. Another big reason it is possibly posited this universal systematic expression of energy and matter might or must have had a related starting point, is the concept of material system aging or entropy.

Suns die.. I think there is evidence of that. Eventually all suns will die. There fore at some point suns had to have been born.

At some point it is thought atoms will just start decaying? What keeps atoms from not decaying? Strong weak nuclear and em force?
Eventually all stars will die. And there will not be enough cohesive material to make new ones, and while this happens the gravitational slackening due to these lost stars will effect galaxy structure?

Though some galaxies do produce new stars? The central super massive black hole sucks in energy and if the Galaxy began to collapse enough due to enough stars dying the central black hole may have it's gut punched by this slackening and cough up new stars?

Not to mention the relation between the em field and gravity medium, if stars die and Galaxy starts to collapse maybe this will ripple the gravity/em medium into producing new stars?

Electrons being excitations in field? The physical material existing nature of said field? Said field exists as an actual existing substantial non nothing thingness from one side of the universe to the other, up down and all around, but the em field and quark field and hugs field and neutrino field and gravity field also exist at every planck length as well, hm.

So an electron solitary floating in space, let's say it somehow got outside a Galaxy, and it's now floating in between galaxies, and the galaxies are drifting apart, and this electron never comes near another particle for a trillion trillion years or whatever, does the electron randomly decay for no reason?

So maybe, the fundamental stuffness decays, entropy occurs, humpty Dumpty drifts apart broken, unfixable, which compels the thought if the stuff gets old, possibly at once it was all new.

So it's all crammed together equal in a box. And then with no cause, no clue how all this potential stuff got crammed in this one place, one day, it just begins to universe.

And, this supposed completely singular substanceness; just so happened, to turn into the stable all pervasive em field, and stable knitted all pervasive gravity field, and that stuff that turned to em field did so nearly irreversibly and uniquely and maintained it's allegiance to it's systematic type, and quark gluon plasma of course, and then sometime the universal electron type was born and claimed it's universal self type to all pervade the universe, and somehow this thing called charge was established, and all these seperate shocked into teams stuff of supposed originally entirely one singular type of essential substance, turned into all these pretty stably unique compatible things, that then spun into galaxies of atoms making fireball stars,which exploded out planets containing a vast array of interacting elements and chemicals, on merely one of which can occur the totality of human history and beyond in a second of cosmic time. Noice.


In response to above some queries on the eternal universality of math, if we could make a simulation that concious entities could exist in, like the Sims or Minecraft, and there were physics in their realm, and distance they could walk and trees, would they use anything other fundamentally but the same math as us? A ruler with even demarcations to compare the height of a tree to the height of a house, and if the tree was 29 even ruler demarcations high and the house was 50 evenly spaced ruler demarcations high, would the house to them not be 21 even ruler demarcations larger? Or would it depend on the nature of their eyes and mind? I don't think so, even if they saw all kaleidoscopey, it would still be true the relations between the even ruler demarcations. And further more more fundamentally, that they could point to the tree and say one, and point to the house and say one, and point to them at the same time and say one and one, and call it two things.

>>19990579
Proofs for 2 please

>>19990652
1. Cats are great
2. Cats exist
3. From 1. and 2., it is great to exist
4. From 3., it is greater to exist than to not exist

>>19990061
this comment encapsulates how /lit/ has fallen

>>19990227
What are the brackets for? Didn't 'they' invent your entire religion in the first place?

>>19989847
does this quote sums up the fat friar's philosophy?

>>19990765
>pretending to celebrate passover
kek christers never cease to amuse

>>19990770
I hope a tiger eats you

>>19990784
Next year in Jerusalem!

>>19990234
>What makes you think you can understand what exists beyond that with them
Because there are nessecerily apriori eternally true truths that can be knowm via deductive reasoning, and according to the deffinition of words and concepts.

Quantity is a concept. 1 and 0 is a concept. Quanta is a concept. These concepts can be pointed to as material.
Something/quanta/quantities/1+ exists; instead of absolutely only pure nothing/0 existing.

The state/arrangement of the totality of non nothing's existence must exactly exist as it does at every given time, continously at all given times. Now and now and now and now and now the totality of all things exist exactly in the way they do at exactly the moment I wrote now and now and now..
I believe with good reason I can make that claim and it can be true without me looking in other galaxies right now. I think high probability that is true. That the state of a Galaxy exists exactly as it does.

I am saying A=A.

Infinity is a startling concept, startling enough that their maybe/likely is infinite time, and maybe the quantity of material can organize into infinite differnt shapes and types.

But at one or any give times or the linear continuum of all given times; the total quantity of quantas cannot be innumerable.

We can say there may be 9999999999999999999^9999999999999999999 quantas, and if you suggest at this or any moment it is possible to exist infinite quantas: then we would say times that number ^^^^ by 9999999999999999999^9999999999999999999 and times that by 9999999999999999999^9999999999999999999 and times that by 9999999999999999999^9999999999999999999 and times that by 9999999999999999999^9999999999999999999 and times that by 9999999999999999999^9999999999999999999 an times that by 9999999999999999999^9999999999999999999 and times that by 9999999999999999999^9999999999999999999

And you would have to do that infinite infinite more times and you would never come close to reaching the total existing quantity of quantity.

It is tautalogically false by deffinition for which that at once exists in quantity that if one were to press pause and have infinite time to count all the quanta that exists, never reach a final number.

I don't know how many ways to make the point clear one either sees how this makes sense or doesn't.

Infinity (quanta/of substance) by its very deffinition cannot physically exist, because the ongoingness idea of infinity is that it's fullness at any given one moment is nonexistent. Infinity is not a quantity of things, it is the idea of beyond quantity, which I suppose requires time to process. So at any single moment in time, infinity objects cannot exist, because infinity implies endlessness, and an endless amount of things can't exist at once, because one can always say there must be one more, and one more, and 99999999^99999999999999999999 more, and 999999^99999999999999999999999999 more, etc etc etc etc etc,

>>19990569
Obviously not

>>19990569
Thanks for the concern though