/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.18981290]

Atheism got obliterated by St. Thomas Aquinas PBUH. I just remade his argument of motion and contingence in a way that demonstrates how infinite regression is impossible. It's the same argument although you might don't see it.
>1) A system X cannot be generated by itself.
>2) A system X has to be caused or uncaused
>3) A system X contains a sequence of elements (X1, X2, X3, XN)
>4) If none of these elements is uncaused or the cause of itself, system X doesn't have a reason for being configured as (X1, X2, X3, XN), since X is not uncaused nor the cause of itself.
>5) There's an uncaused reason (called K) why system X is caused.
>6) X cannot be the cause of K, so K must be external to X.
>7) God is K, the uncaused reason that causes system X

[Anonymous No.18981350]

>>18981290
I think people will try and make the "who caused god" argument (because the fedoras always do) so additionally following the line that there must be an eternal beginning (Alpha). The atheists brain cannot comprehend Omniscience or what it means in regards to the nature of existence so regardless this argument wont help their soul, but for believers who can i think this is a great retelling of this Thomistic argument. God bless you OP and I hope you have a great day

[Anonymous No.18981378]

>>18981290
Infinite regression is "impossible" only because you say so. You picked a cause arbitrarily and said it stops here. You are no better than materialists playing with particles and sub-particles. There's always another layer and always people like you who say, no this is absolutely the final layer

[Anonymous No.18981380]

>>18981378
>only because you say so
only because I demonstrated so.............

[Anonymous No.18981388]

>>18981290
>Aquinas
BTFO'd by Hume

[Anonymous No.18981403]

>>18981290
There is no truth. Only feelings. If you're a conservative, it's probably because you hate women. No amount of argumentation will hide that fact. You like Christianity because it imposes limitations on women. This idea appeals to you because women rejected you. Now you want to make women seethe by pushing a religion that will deprive them of their freedoms.

Christian-larpers BTFO'D.

[Anonymous No.18981404]

>>18981380
sure you did buddy. you said something can't generate itself and then you said god is ungenerated. stick to your bible

[Anonymous No.18981405]

>>18981290
Monotheism was refuted by Parmenides.

[Anonymous No.18981415]

>>18981404
which is different than saying that God caused himself.

[Anonymous No.18981421]

>>18981403
YES WHY I spend a reasonable amount of time composing a logical argument for the existence of God because I hate women...

[Anonymous No.18981424]

>>18981290
and yet god still doesn't exist

[Anonymous No.18981440]

>>18981415
Well if god did not cause himself and is himself uncaused, then ultimately all things "caused" by him are without cause. Congratulations you've now discovered Buddhism. Neither birth nor death, all are delusion, etc.

[Anonymous No.18981453]

>>18981440
>ultimately all things "caused" by him are without cause
nO, because he caused them to be, ex nihilo etc

[Anonymous No.18981458]

>>18981453
Ok but he is without cause. So they are without cause. And as you admit made from NOTHING. Ball is in your court now, priest. Explain how you aren't a nihilist.

[Anonymous No.18981467]

eeh i think if an infinite god can exist then infinite regression can exist, but the discussion does 100% validate opening ones mind to the possiblity of god

[Anonymous No.18981468]

>>18981453
how can he have any efficacy if he is uncaused

[Anonymous No.18981478]

>>18981458
>So they are without cause
No, they have a cause (God).

[Anonymous No.18981480]

I dont think my question deserves its own thread so I'm just gonna post it here since it has (some) relevance to the topic:
>In your opinion does existence precede essence or does essence precede existence? If God has always existed then wouldnt his existence precede his essence? Could he then define his essence through his creations?
I am a turbo brainlet so I have no stance on this, just curious about your thoughts

[Anonymous No.18981484]

Based Aquinas destroyed the false doctrine of the Immaculate Conception

[Anonymous No.18981526]

>>18981458
>causation isnt causation unless it extends back in an infinite regress
so this is the power of sophistry…

[Anonymous No.18981531]

>>18981478
They have a causeless cause; they are ultimately without cause

[Anonymous No.18981542]

>>18981526
No, it would be sophistry to argue for a causeless cause of things that somehow would make things not ultimately causeless.

[Anonymous No.18981709]

Picture version for readletts.

[Anonymous No.18981973]

HOLY BVMP

[Anonymous No.18982119]

>>18981290
What if the big bang was the actuator of our reality and before the big bang is another layer of reality that we are unaware of?

[Anonymous No.18982294]

>>7) God is K, the uncaused reason that causes system X
>never mentions God in any of the previous steps
>never justifies why, even if we accept tge previous steps, we should call this unmoved mover 'God'
>never explains why it's supposed to be the Christian God and not Yahweh or Allah, and even if we accept this which denomination we're supposed to pick

Yep, sounds like prime Aquinas, good job

[Anonymous No.18982365]

>>18981290
Steps 1 and 7 still don't really come the overall problems that Kant and Hume identify in ontological/cosmological arguments.
1 holds with regards to Aristotelean logic, but does it hold absolutely? Do we have the ability to know a priori that a system can't be the cause of itself? Nietzche's idea of infinite return at least throws a wrench into this point.
7 also by no means implies a capital G God. It's just as possible that a pantheistic/deistic "god" of natural law spawned by a singular/accidental chemical reaction created the universe.
I've always preferred Augustine's argument. It also doesn't overcome Kant but it at least implies that God is rational. The limited nature of human experience means that arguments can never prove God but I think they do a decent job of at least opening up the possibility.

[Anonymous No.18982388]

>>18981350
At the end of the chain of contingency there must be an eternal cause of everything; an eternal, necessary, noncontingent being, that is the end of the chain. Because it has to be uncaused, eternal and omnipotent, we call it God.
The "who caused god" thing is because people like that are retarded and don't understand the idea. You cannot cause something uncaused. The end of contingency must be uncaused.

[Anonymous No.18982397]

>>18982388
>Because it has to be uncaused, eternal and omnipotent, we call it God.
Not Allah?

[Anonymous No.18982404]

>>18981290
>1) A system X cannot be generated by itself.
>2) A system X has to be caused or uncaused
>3) A system X contains a sequence of elements (X1, X2, X3, XN)
>4) If none of these elements is uncaused or the cause of itself, system X doesn't have a reason for being configured as (X1, X2, X3, XN), since X is not uncaused nor the cause of itself.
>5) There's an uncaused reason (called K) why system X is caused.
>6) X cannot be the cause of K, so K must be external to X.
>7) The Flying Spaghetti Monster is K, the uncaused reason that causes system X
The best theists can come up with is an argument for deism which isn't even correct. The absolute state of Christcucks

[Anonymous No.18982409]

>>18981290
>>18981350
Invariably, when you ask theists if this type of argument convinced them, they will say "No, it was faith". You guys should just quit the argumentation thing, stick to what your weird cult actually boils down to, faith.

[Anonymous No.18982410]

>>18981415
Why does god get the honor of being the only one able to choose the third option?

[Anonymous No.18982415]

>>18982388
>There has to be... because

[Anonymous No.18982419]

>>18981380
You started with the premise that infinite regression is impossible. You can't prove your premise by using it as a premise, that's a circular argument you absolute mongoloid.

[Anonymous No.18982420]

>>18981350
Holy fuck, what a condescending, self congratulatory dipshit you are. Were you born a douchebag, or did you work really hard to become one?

[Anonymous No.18982424]

>>18981350
>The atheists brain cannot comprehend Omniscience
kek

[Anonymous No.18982429]

>>18982419
Don't bother, he probably unironically believes in teleology as well, or babbys first mysticism lol

[Anonymous No.18982431]

>>18981709
So this is all based on the assumption "an endless inert chain will be inert?"
There is nothing causing air to be cold. The air is already cold. It has became cold, and will transfer the coldness forward. An infinite chain of boxcars will move... If they are in orbit.
Energy is passed back and forth. The assumption that there must have been a primal "energy giver" is suspect. From where do you draw it? Maybe this is what always have been and always will be, energy transferred back and forth.

[Anonymous No.18982432]

test

[Anonymous No.18982433]

>>18982294
>>never mentions God in any of the previous steps
It doesn't matter what term OP used, it would always follow with "and [term] is what we refer to when we speak of God" or so.
>>never explains why it's supposed to be the Christian God and not Yahweh or Allah, and even if we accept this which denomination we're supposed to pick
Because that's not the point of OPs argument? Why are you faulting him for something he isn't even attempting?

>>18982365
>Do we have the ability to know a priori that a system can't be the cause of itself?
How could it be? lol. Nothing can cause itself in the sense OP is referring to. What is not, necessarily cannot cause anything. It is NOT after all.

>>18982410
What third option is OP selecting? OP says a thing is either caused or uncaused. That's only two options.

>>18982419
Infinite regression of the kind OP is referring to is impossible, and no one can argue to the contrary reasonably.

[Anonymous No.18982439]

>>18982424
>I, the glorious theist, COMPREHENDS OMNISCIENCE, I KNOW THE MIND OF GOD! HEAR ME!!!!!!!
What the fuck is this thread?

[Anonymous No.18982441]

>>18982433
>Infinite regression of the kind OP is referring to is impossible, and no one can argue to the contrary reasonably.
Why?

[Anonymous No.18982443]

>>18982433
Why can't the world be uncaused?

[Anonymous No.18982444]

>>18982433
>Because that's not the point of OPs argument?

It's not important to know whether you've wasted your life on something that will cause Allah to hand you a one way ticket into hellfire? Why should I be worried then?

[Anonymous No.18982449]

>>18982444
Yeah well ops argument is about existence of anything "other", you could say. Then you can pick your favorite brand.

[Anonymous No.18982460]

>>18982443
Because then their religious cope don't work

[Anonymous No.18982463]

>>18982397
No, not Allah.
Go read books. Aquinas doesn't just use various proofs (ways) for the existence of God, the rest he dedicates to proving, if God exists, why God is the Christian God...
Because you've heard only about the ways it doesn't mean he didn't write about anything else...

[Anonymous No.18982470]

No sane and rational person is an atheist

[Anonymous No.18982492]

>>18982463
Then explaining why I have to accept it as the Christian and the Catholic version of God should be no problem for you. Proceed.

[Anonymous No.18982496]

>>18981290
1. An axiom which cannot be proved or disproved.
2. An axiom which cannot be proved or disproved.
3. {X1, X2, ..., Xn} Here, I fixed your set.
4. Sets can be configured in any way as long as they contain the same elements, that is, no one is retarded enough to claim {1,2} != {2,1}
5. >A speculated reason as to why my logic is not fallacious
6. >If a system did not cause my reason for the existence of my system, then my reason is the cause of my system.
7. >Just for fun I will call my arbitrary particular K "God"

You're just a part of the reason why religiosity is declining with how proud you are in rehashing the zombie argument of psuedo-intellectualism.

[Anonymous No.18982504]

>>18982388
>eternal, necessary, noncontingent
Any particular reason this can't be a property of nature?

[Anonymous No.18982536]

>believes is logic
>believes in miracles
pick one

[Anonymous No.18982538]

>>18982470
You can't possibly believe what you just posted. If you actually do believe it, you need to get outside your echo chambers more.

[Anonymous No.18982549]

>>18982536
why? if logic can dictate god exists then miracles are also logical

[Anonymous No.18982553]

So like, is your mind also an uncaused mover, or do people who find this argument convincing dive deep into determinism?

[Anonymous No.18982561]

>>18981290
But this is just autistic metaphysics, no one actually cares. Any intelligent atheist will concede the point. Then, how do you advance from the extremely vague deism you have established, to the very specific Christian God?

I am a Christian btw. But not because of this sort of argument. The only way to properly BTFO atheism and justify an actual religion is existentialism. But of course Kierkegaard is less meme-worthy so no one talks about him here.

[Anonymous No.18982573]

>>18982553
>do people who find this argument convincing
No one does. If you ask any religious person if this argument convinced them, they will say no. It's a flawed argument that is only deemed meritorious by people who already believe it's premises and conclusions and then conveniently leave out the fact that it means, as Thomas Hobbes stated: “Liberty and necessity are consistent: as in the water that hath not only liberty, but a necessity of descending by the channel; so, likewise in the actions which men voluntarily do, which, because they proceed their will, proceed from liberty, and yet because every act of man's will and every desire and inclination proceedeth from some cause, and that from another cause, in a continual chain (whose first link is in the hand of God, the first of all causes), proceed from necessity. So that to him that could see the connexion of those causes, the necessity of all men's voluntary actions would appear manifest.”

[Anonymous No.18982607]

>>18982443
That's entirely possible. It's a valid option. At least, within OPs limited argument, there's no reason to deny that his "K" is just the universe, however exactly that works out and means. OP doesn't really have the framework to draw out any conclusions on the nature of "K", so his attribution of the name "God" is really not part of his argument but a supplement or part of a follow on.

>>18982444
Because OP is agnostic to the details of "K"/"God" that he has asserted is. And anyways, when St. Aquinas presented the (better) version of this argument, he didn't claim as consequence catholicism is correct, so what you're discussing here is really irrelevant to OP and St. Aquinas. I know that it's a common rebuttal "ok but which God" but it's entirely not the point of the argument, and also when you state this rebuttal you're already conceding that OP is correct that there is some "K"/"God" that exists.

>>18982441
Specifically, take it about existence. If X only exists because of Y because of Z, then if Z doesn't exist it is so that neither would Y or X. But if Z exists because of ZZ, then ZZ must exist for X, Y and Z to exist. And so on for ZZ needing ZZZ, and ZZZ needing ZZZZ.... and no matter how far back you go, there is always an additional cause being inserted. But because there's always another cause, you can never actually have ZZ cause Z, because ZZZ wasn't so to cause ZZ, and ZZZ wasn't so to cause ZZ because ZZZZ wasn't so because ZZZZZ wasn't so and so on.
I mean that's a pretty rough explanation but if you think it through, you'd come to basically the same conclusion. I mean obviously this makes an assumption that a thing must be to be the cause of another thing but again, what would it mean for something that is not to cause something? That sounds like an absurdity so I don't think it's a legitimate objection.

>>18982492
You could just read the Summa Contra Gentiles if you want to really know what St. Aquinas said and his reasoning. But here's an excerpt that might shed light on your misguided belief that St. Aquinas' five ways are intended to prove Catholicism specifically.
<The
truths that we confess concerning God fall under two modes. Some things true of God are beyond all the competence of
human reason, as that God is Three and One. Other things there are to which even human reason can attain, as the
existence and unity of God, which philosophers have proved to a demonstration under the guidance of the light of
natural reason.

[Anonymous No.18982609]

parts of our world appears to follow certain patterns
these leads to an issue when trying to ascertain the ultimate origin (of the whole already fell off to arguing by way of false analogies) of our world
therefore these patterns needs a rule breaker
*asserts arbitrary rule breaker*

[Anonymous No.18982623]

>>18982607
Why do you expect the rules of causation to be the same prior to or outside the existence of time? "Causation" is a temporal phenomenon where the thing's existence is contingent on the existence of a thing previously in time. If you try to apply this to time itself, or to a situation where time does not exist, it is futile and illogical.

[Anonymous No.18982675]

>>18982496
>1
No, it's pretty clearly provable when you consider what it means to cause another thing
>2
Uhm, if a thing isn't caused then it necessarilly must be uncaused. Like there really are only two options but if you can imagine a third please try to explain it.
>3,4
OP seemed deliberate to not call it a set, and it doesn't seem like your representing him fairly by these comments.
>5
It's a necessary consequence if OPs "X" is not caused, that something else caused X. If you can't admit that it is a valid statement then maybe you're just not smart enough to deserve snide remarks.

>>18982623
>Why do you expect the rules of causation to be the same prior to or outside the existence of time?
I think this is more complex than can be justified with a simple response. After all, we haven't even established what time is, to be able to say what could be outside of it or prior to it. Prior to time is a funny idea in itself, since for a thing to be prior to time already asserts a temporal relation. It's not necessarily clear that such a statement is even sensical until what time "is", is established. So, beyond just asserting that time is something where there can be a prior to it, perhaps we'd better prove that time is something where that can be a prior to it. Further, "apply this to time itself" seems to assert something on what kind of thing time is when that has in no ways been demonstrated by yourself.

[Anonymous No.18982750]

Can you please explain why you think this K-God got a mind?

It's kinda hilarious, "big apologetics name" William Lane Craig, goes with something to the effect of:
For this uncased eternal K, to not just sit around changeless forever it needs a property that grants it the ability of spontaneous action, a mind.

This property of spontaneous action, is of course something we have no examples of, by way of this argument (everything requiring a cause.) indeed cannot have examples of.
So it feels particularly retarded to suggest an arbitrary thing, which has never been instantiated

[Anonymous No.18982752]

>>18982561
holy shit WE AREN'T DISCUSSING CHRISTIANITY IN HERE.

[Anonymous No.18982768]

>>18982443
because of science.

[Anonymous No.18982811]

>>18982675
That's why I included the phrase "outside time" and "situation where time does not exist". This is why the argument fails, because it blanket asserts certain things about time and causation which are not certain and may not even be justified in building on when discussion something like "caused and uncaused" being the only two options.

[Anonymous No.18982815]

Logic is a language that describes reality, that humans invented (by looking at reality).
It is dumb to assume reality will always correspond to this logic, when you stretch it encompass things that you haven't ever looked at, (by way of shaky analogies)

To me, it feels plausible that really, really small things, or really, really BIG things will behave differently than the reality we can observe in our daily lives, or spy at with tools.
Of the really, really small things behaving weirdly, we already (arguably) have plenty of examples. Quantum mechanics being fucking weird, not logical at all.
Casmir effect, Virtual particles, etc- already dipping into the realm of "uncaused".

Newtonian physics, entirely logical, manmade language (math/physics) that tries to describes reality (but failed), reality didn't correspond; enter general relativity

[Anonymous No.18982825]

>>18981290
This proves that the christian god is real and I go to H E double hockeysticks for jacking off how exactly?

[Anonymous No.18982846]

>>18981290

Funny you wrote this in a form that suggests it is an argument, considering it is just a series of unconnected and unproved statements.

[Anonymous No.18982857]

>>18981290
Atheists btfo atheism themselves. Imagine being a fat, unemployed, unemployable, gunted, diabetic neckbeard who plays video games all day and not realise you're being punished.

[Anonymous No.18982884]

>>18982857
Holy shit, people still post this boomer tier meme about atheist neckbeards? Time to retire grandpa, non-religious is still the fastest growing religious demographic

[Anonymous No.18982888]

>>18982404
Yeah, this is the insane part, how irrelevant the whole thing is. "A prime mover exists, ergo jacking off is wrong."

[Anonymous No.18982896]

>>18982857
>having a job means you believe in G*D and he loves you
???

[Anonymous No.18982914]

>>18981290
This entire argument gets completely destroyed if you can't prove that stasis is the natural state

[Anonymous No.18982915]

For an argument to be deductive you need to have exhausted all logical space.
I consider "unknown" to be a viable option, so you'll probably not sell me on that one.

When viewed as an inductive argument (as it should be), it's significantly weaker.
The premises are empiric. "A system X cannot be generated by itself." is an empiric claim, that is intuitively easy to accept because we've never seen anything that caused itself, right?
It's a massive retarded leap to take properties of things we interact with on a daily basis, and apply them to things we never have interacted with, who's nature is/maybe? fundamentally different than anything we've ever seen.

It's literally Monty Python's witch logic, "If she weight the same as a duck, she is made of wood.. and is therefore a witch"

[Anonymous No.18982933]

I’m not a fedorafag but can someone explain why the Christian must be the first mover instead of say, for example, the Muslim god?

I’m not using this as a gotcha I’m genuinely curious

[Anonymous No.18982937]

>>18982884
>non-religious
Is the only religious demographic that's declining because they're all incels who don't have kids.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/04/07/why-people-with-no-religion-are-projected-to-decline-as-a-share-of-the-worlds-population/
Imagine having your entire movement btfo by a few pictures of a fat guy wearing a fedora.

[Anonymous No.18982942]

>>18981709
How does he reconcile the trinity?

[Anonymous No.18982974]

>>18982937
Imagine thinking that having kids is the sole way to spread a concept.

[Anonymous No.18982983]

>>18982937
"Non-religious" is misleading as a demographic category. It's fed by every other demographic group. There's no Church of the Irreverent that people belong to and participate in. All it takes to be non-religious is to do nothing. And so it's fair to assume, given how easy nothing is, that it is always undercounted.

[Anonymous No.18982991]

everything that has been explained, had a natural explanation
therefore, everything has a natural explanation

The supernatural BTFO!
BOOM

Refute me. you cannot.

[Anonymous No.18983004]

>>18982974
>have kids
>send them to college
>they culture-shift to being secular bi-coastals
Oops.

[Anonymous No.18983041]

>>18982974
More effective than having none at all lmaooooo

[Anonymous No.18983061]

>>18982937
Religious de-conversion means the total demographic is rising. Your weird cult beliefs are being shed by more and more people at faster and faster rates.

[Anonymous No.18983065]

>>18983041
Yeah, just look at how animism is doing!

[Anonymous No.18983076]

>>18983041
I hope you're ready for your kids to reject your faith and cut you out of their lives unless you respect that lmaoooooo

[Anonymous No.18983088]

>>18983041
How many kids that jewish preacher had?

[Anonymous No.18983114]

>>18981709
>A flaw or imperfection is a potentiality, and something purely actual would not have any imperfections and so would be perfect.
Begging the question. You cannot have a valid, well-defined concept of perfection without a perfect telos defined with reference to a perfect God, and you therefore cannot use such a concept to argue for the perfection of the purely actual something without presupposing that the purely actual something is already perfect.

Accept everything else for now, even though the argument for omnipotence contradicts itself and the argument for omniscience begs further questions. Once you take away perfection, what is left of God?

[Anonymous No.18983140]

I dunno where else to ask this
I read a sci-fantasy book called Fall of Hyperion and the sequel talks about Judaism a lot, but I want to apply this to Christianity
The idea is that the Human race’s relationship with God has changed over time, like the relationship of a parent and child changes as the child grows older
So before Jesus came we were kids who needed to be punished/kept in line with sacrifices and harsh OT justice
Then Jesus came and we became closer to God, and are now teenagers/young adults going through puberty.
And eventually when Jesus returns we’ll be adults
Is there anyone who’s written in depth about this?

[Anonymous No.18983166]

>>18983140
Last Answer - Asimov https://highexistence.com/the-last-answer-short-story/

[Anonymous No.18983172]

all of this power created by a being older than the universe just so we could worship a jewish hippy that he possessed
why do we worship him and not the creator again?
in regards to your answer, how is that not idol worship?

[Anonymous No.18983325]

>>18983166
This story was awesome, thank you for sharing it anon

[Anonymous No.18983326]

>>18983061
>US
Irrelevant when countries like Iran and Egypt have 300 million people by 2100. The West is dying and with it the embarrassing atheist experiment.

[Anonymous No.18983350]

>>18982933
The first mover must be God. Only something omniscient and omnipotent can be a first mover or all cause/source.

So it must either be God or Allah. Why one or the other? Well you'd have to have knowledge of God itself to discern which is which.

Is there a logical argument you could form to exclude one or the other. Maybe from scriptures you can discern qualities then prove/disprove one over the other.

[Anonymous No.18983355]

>>18983326
They only grow so large because of western humanist governments not letting them collapse into the traditional cycle of dynastic and sectarian warfare. There's no reason for a century of static borders other than powerful western countries that run the world getting all weepy eyed at the idea of redrawing a map to comply with changes in a society's vitals, and applying pressure and relief mechanisms to preserve the status quo

[Anonymous No.18983362]

>>18982915
I agree but then you're just falling to the presumption that any argument is fallible because we could always be wrong and up could also be down and everything we know could be wrong, yada yada.

[Anonymous No.18983374]

>>18983350
>Only something omniscient and omnipotent can be a first mover or all cause/source.
How does this answer the question of "Why?"
drooling retard

[Anonymous No.18983379]

>>18983374
Why what? Why one or the other or why God?

[Anonymous No.18983380]

>who caused god
>yeah bro dont worry about it

[Anonymous No.18983384]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4LuQFm307I

Now seethe.

[Anonymous No.18983390]

>>18983350
Doesn't God have infinite names? I am sure the English "God" is just one of them.

[Anonymous No.18983428]

>>18983362
>any argument is fallible
Sure. I'd fall in to the category of a fallibilist.
I don't believe we can know anything about the world with absolute certainty. (and I think people who do, are unreasonable)

That said. I also think we can have varying degrees of confidence/certainty in our truth claims.
Yeah.. not feeling this criticism

[Anonymous No.18983440]

>>18983428
But your criticism is the Universe can just create itself, potentially, right? Isn't this outside of any reasonable degree of confidence? Muh waves. OK, why waves?


>>18983390
Sure, but they seem different. Maybe they are the same idk

[Anonymous No.18983457]

>>18983379
Why: "Only something omniscient and omnipotent can be a first mover or all cause/source." why is this statement true?
You simply asserted this (again), when asked the question of why it's the case.

Being the cause of our world, entails no power beyond precisely that action. Certainly not omnipotence.
Neither does it entail omniscience, you have yet to show why you think it got a mind. Then you can move onto why/how it would know everything.

[Anonymous No.18983480]

>>18983355
>They only grow so large because of western humanist governments not letting them collapse into the traditional cycle of dynastic and sectarian warfare.
This is mostly due to the Green Revolution allowing them to import a ton of food, at least in the Egyptian case.

[Anonymous No.18983485]

>>18981290
>1) A system X cannot be generated by itself.
>7) God is K, the uncaused reason that causes system X

These are not true

[Anonymous No.18983505]

>>18981403
you do realize jesus christ removed limitations from women? he got under risk of being stoned to death and having his movement end there to defend a women accused by adultery

even formal prostitutes could enter his house or hear his speeches

please learn the difference between OT and NT, and many christians don't know either.

[Anonymous No.18983527]

>>18983440
>But your criticism is the Universe can just create itself, potentially, right? Isn't this outside of any reasonable degree of confidence? Muh waves. OK, why waves?

I made no such claims, and will not argue against a retarded strawman.
However, I am partial to a naturalistic explanation. Because never has the supernatural be demonstrated to exist. - Inductive reasoning, empirical evidence (sense experience)
Therefore, I prefer an explanation that does not invoke an entirely new ontology, that has never been demonstrated to exist (not that people haven't tried)
I find that more reasonable, assign it a higher degree of confidence, so to speak.

My objections would greatly vary depending what you mean by Theism/God, that the argument is trying to show.
If read strongly enough through the lens of a materialist, you can just conclude it's caused by some unknown naturalistic property, anyway . But then why call it an argument for Theism?

[Anonymous No.18983531]

>>18983505
>he got under risk of being stoned to death
He knew he would not die then, only at the garden of Gethsemane did he know he would die, so it is not the courageous act you present it as. As for removing limitations, "there is no man or woman in Christ, and we will be like the angels in Heaven, not give over in marriage-" I suppose the move to androgyny or spiritual androgyny is the greatest disrespect of the woman.

[Anonymous No.18983532]

>>18983384
>voice dictation
fuck off

[Anonymous No.18983536]

>>18983505
>he got under risk of being stoned to death and having his movement end there to defend a women accused by adultery
Is that a fact? How do you know this?

[Anonymous No.18983547]

>>18981290
>2) A system X has to be caused or uncaused
What's the point of this premise, is just supposed to be tautological, true by definition?

[Anonymous No.18983565]

>>18982388
>At the end of the chain of contingency there must be an eternal cause of everything
Why?

[Anonymous No.18983583]

>>18983565
infinite doesn't exist

[Anonymous No.18983587]

>eternal
As in immutable, changeless?
How does one go from that state, to you know.. doing things, such as creating the universe from scratch.

[Anonymous No.18983588]

>>18983326

[Anonymous No.18983602]

>>18983583
Yeah, I also don't believe abstract objects "exist", such as numbers or the properties of a set.
It's still a bold claim, if you are just going to assert it.

[Anonymous No.18983625]

>>18983583
Alright.
Take whatever property you think God have, that lets him escape the issue of an infinite regress.
Apply it to a naturalistic explanation, and tell me why it's a less reasonable explanation?

[Anonymous No.18983651]

>>18982443
That would make the world fundamentally irrational and unravel all causality. Thats a steep price to pay just to keep being an atheist, and if the world is irrational then you can't even make the argument that theism should be rationally justifiable anyway since you've given up the goose on that front.

[Anonymous No.18983658]

>>18981290
>infinite regression is impossible
>retards: This. So much this.....

[Anonymous No.18983662]

>>18982492
Proving atheism is wrong is sufficient for me. I'm a mere theist. So you're on my side now, God exists.

[Anonymous No.18983673]

>>18983658
It's true though. You can calculate Pi to an arbitrarily high number of digits but if you go backwards you'll always end up at 3. Infinite regression from anything that requires a fixed starting point is impossible.

[Anonymous No.18983677]

>>18981709
>"Potential ice.... cannot make you slip"

gg Aquinas no re

[Anonymous No.18983678]

>>18983662
Wait, so if you "prove" atheism is wrong, aren't you undermining the very concept of faith? This makes you a heretic.

[Anonymous No.18983679]

>>18983651
>That would make the world fundamentally irrational
It is
>and unravel all causality.
Causality has nothing to do with reason, read Kant.
>Thats a steep price to pay just to keep being an atheist
You're talking like believing in the ex nihilo creator god is the default position of humanity rather than the mythology of a particular desert tribe

[Anonymous No.18983694]

>>18983651
>That would make the world fundamentally irrational and unravel all causality.
Another bold claim.
Tell me, why does Theism, which is essentially the same + slapping a God label on.. something. Escape this issue?

>you can't even make the argument that theism should be rationally justifiable anyway since you've given up the goose on that front.
Always with this deflection. Still, I don't think Theism is rationally justified, do you agree?

[Anonymous No.18983701]

>>18983673
You can take a random point on a circle and go infinitely in either direction
You can prove anything with stupid examples, they are not necessarily relevant to the universe unless proven otherwise

[Anonymous No.18983722]

>>18982443
the world is a system like X. What you call the world/the universe is just a sequence of different things. K must be simple for not being a sequence like X, since then there would be a K2 that causes K and so on which we already agreed it's impossible.

[Anonymous No.18983787]

>this retard tells the other retard to read Kant
>the guy that wrote this
If we assume that the world has no beginning in time, then up to every given moment an eternity has elapsed, and there has passed away in that world an infinite series of successive states of things. Now the infinity of a series consists in the fact that it can never be completed through successive synthesis. It thus follows that it is impossible for an infinite world-series to have passed away, and that a beginning of the world is therefore a necessary condition of the world's existence.

[Anonymous No.18983798]

>>18981709
The hilarious thing with chains of dependence, is that I've never seen a theistic argument provide an actual real world example that holds up.
Same thing as Feser's hierarchical series, right?

With this example of ice freezing, if I remove any part of the chain RIGHT NOW, the water won't freeze?
I remove the power plant; my freezer will still remain cold for a good while, the ice will freeze. Flat out wrong.

Nitpicking? No! The entire point of these series are that there is no time involved. Still there should be a relationship of causes with a first member acting upon the next, and so on.
But, nothing in nature actually works like that, when you examine it closely as it would be in reality, rather as an idealized analog.

I'm just saying that if you want to convince people that reality follows this logic, you really should be able to provide just 1 actual example.

[Anonymous No.18983818]

>>18983798
>I remove the power plant; my freezer will still remain cold for a good while, the ice will freeze. Flat out wrong.
Honestly, while it will "remain cold for a while", it will just get hotter and hotter, not sure you'd be able to get ice from water after turning it off. In fact, putting a "hot" item (=liquid water) would just make the freezer going hotter faster

[Anonymous No.18983820]

When smart people say: Infinity. They mean it as a property of a set. Infinity is not a number.
How is this hard?

[Anonymous No.18983845]

>>18983787
>he just posts his preferred half of the antinomy and hopes people don't catch up on his faggotry
In other words, fuck off

[Anonymous No.18983876]

>>18983818
Okay. Not the point. That's actual nitpicking.

In an chain of dependence, the power(or actuality, lmao Aristotle) is supposed to derive from the first member in the series. While the freezer has no actuality, and has simply potential, which is being actualized by the power plant.

This is actual stone age logic, or whatever time period Aristotle lived in.
Nothing in nature works like that, when view with a modern understanding of physics.

It just goes to show logic is invented by humans

[Anonymous No.18983881]

>>18981290

>“The only really effective apologia for Christianity comes down to two arguments, namely the saints the Church has produced and the art which has grown in her womb.”
Pope Benedict XVI speaking as Cardinal Ratzinger in The Ratzinger Report (p.129-130).
https://www.benedictinstitute.org/2018/01/the-splendor-of-holiness-and-art/

ohnonononono naturaltheologyfags

[Anonymous No.18983883]

>>18983798
>I remove the power plant; my freezer will still remain cold for a good while, the ice will freeze

[Anonymous No.18983891]

>infinites are impossible
>btw, I'm going to live together with Jesus in heaven for an INFINITE amount of time with eternal life
lmao, pick one

[Anonymous No.18983892]

>>18983876
>Okay. Not the point. That's actual nitpicking.
Sorry, I didn't want to sound like an ass. I don't even believe in OP point. I was trying to state something --->
>with a modern understanding of physics.

Btw a couple of years ago my fridge broke just after christmas, the fridge was actually hotter than room temperature, and all shops were closed. No idea how I survived that.

[Anonymous No.18983895]

>>18983881#
Yo read this
>>18982752#

[Anonymous No.18983913]

I half-suspect these Aquinas posts are from falseflagging atheists highlighting the worst arguments of thousand year old theists

[Anonymous No.18983918]

>>18981290
>System X cannot be generated by itself.
Don't see why not.
>God is K
K could be an infinite multitude of things even if the universe couldn't be cyclical.

[Anonymous No.18983930]

>>18983883
It will. Fuck you. It got isolation, and it's insides are already chilled.
At the very least there is lightspeed lag before my freezer even feels the lack of power, from the power plant being removed
Time is involved. It's a chain of dominos, not an idealized process of "actualizing potential"
The power plant is not special, it's actualizing fuckall, not wielding the rest of the chain as "instruments"
This is a system that can be described by temporal causes and effects all the way

Note that this is not an objection to the OP argument.
Simply me being annoyed that people think 2300 year old "logic" will succeed in describing reality. It doesn't. Only on a surface level, because that was what Aristotle could see and knew about, surprise!

[Anonymous No.18983958]

>>18983930
Dude. Stuff in a broken/turned off freezer will not become cooler. It simply won't.
Shit remains cold only because a freezer produces way more heat than "cold". Otherwise it would break 2nd thermodynamic law (that would mean free energy forever)

[Anonymous No.18983969]

>>18981290
>bruhligion
X-tianity (all of them) are younger to at least 30 other religions celebrating the same dude(ette)

doesn't that refute your argument?

[Anonymous No.18984002]

>>18983958
Are you kidding?
The temperature inside my freezer is significantly bellow that of freezing. The instant I unplug it, the temperature will be the same, and will from that moment slowly start increasing.
It will still remain bellow freezing for hours, or days! If you keep the lid locked.

This is testable. Don't believe me? Go and unplug your freezer, right now. Check back on it later, then tell me I'm right.

[Anonymous No.18984013]

>>18983969
..No
Are you illiterate?

[Anonymous No.18984014]

>>18984002
You must live in Alaska.

[Anonymous No.18984021]

>>18981290
>>1) A system X cannot be generated by itself.
>>2) A system X has to be caused or uncaused
>>3) A system X contains a sequence of elements (X1, X2, X3, XN)
>>4) If none of these elements is uncaused or the cause of itself, system X doesn't have a reason for being configured as (X1, X2, X3, XN), since X is not uncaused nor the cause of itself.
>>5) There's an uncaused reason (called K) why system X is caused.
>>6) X cannot be the cause of K, so K must be external to X.
sure, this is a good argument, Aquinas was a smart guy
>7) God is K, the uncaused reason that causes system X
why?

[Anonymous No.18984031]

>>18984014
What part of heat capacity and isolation don't you comprehend?

[Anonymous No.18984038]

>>18983930
The temperature of the inside of the refrigerator is simply irrelevant to the argument. I'm not sure if it is you or the OP who fucked up the analogy, but the fact that the lack of heat inside the refrigerator persists for a small (or even, let's say the fridge was in space and the excess heat was radiated away into space via an ejected heat sink) an INFINITE amount of time simply does not pertain to the argument. As soon as the power supply is disrupted, the gas compressor in the back of the fridge ceases to function IMMEDIATELY as the power supply is disrupted. Ex nihilo nihil. Heat and cold considered in themselves are only even relevant with respect to time, so they cannot be effectively considered in an argument which is beyond time. Heat is the average local movement (distance over time) of contained particles. The reason these analogies can never be perfect though is because every single analogy itself is ultimately dependent upon the same singular principle of unmoved movement. The analogy of power boards themselves only have meaning with respect to an unmoved mover; we have to, for the analogy, consider that the circuit between gas compressor and the electricity source is the entire universe, and that when the "prime mover" (which in reality is only a secondary mover) is taken away (the power source, or the link to the power source) the entire circuit disappears. If we consider this entire circuit to be the universe itself, then we say that the entire universe disappears. But we obviously cannot run this experiment with the universe itself.

[Anonymous No.18984039]

>>18984002
>Don't believe me? Go and unplug your freezer, right now
I don't need to

>>18983892
My fridge broke a couple years ago, between christmas and NYE, in a couple of days all the stuff I had was fucking rotten. No, it did not stay "below freezing point for days", it got rotten in a couple of days.

[Anonymous No.18984042]

>>18984038
>the gas compressor in the back of the fridge ceases to function IMMEDIATELY
Einstein would like a word, light speed limit and all that relativity stuff.

[Anonymous No.18984055]

>>18984039
>My fridge broke
An it remained plugged in, right? Probably the mechanism broke, in such a way it actively heated the fridge, rather than letting it remain cold for longer.

[Anonymous No.18984081]

>>18984055
>An it remained plugged in, right?
>Probably the mechanism broke
If the mechanism broke (which it did), it doesn't matter if it's plugged or not - he's not getting the energy to do its job (=cool stuff)

>in such a way it actively heated the fridge,
It was winter, I had heating on in the room. It would get hotter anyway. Fuck, even if I had no heating it would go above freezing point anyway, it's not like I have below zero temperature in my home at midday.

[Anonymous No.18984101]

>>18984042
From the perspective of any given observer, it ceases to function immediately as the power source ceases. The only qualification Einstein requires is that there is no objective reference frame (which, still, is only one scientific theory which may be refuted eventually).

[Anonymous No.18984144]

>>18984081
>If the mechanism broke (which it did), it doesn't matter if it's plugged or not
Broke, as in malfunction. Not stop, at least not right away.
It's a motor, and a system of pumps and, uh stuff.
It's operation generates heat. But it's (successful) operation is to move heat away from the isolated insides of the freezer, to a radiator located on it's outside, thus making it colder.

It's malfunction, may entitle the active introduction of heat, into the isolated insides of the freezer, speeding up the process. (a fast process)
Rather than the passive option of unplugging, and letting heat slowly seep in through the isolation from it's surroundings. (a slow process)

HOW IS THIS HARD?
Anyway, your freezer was shitty, my freezer is nice.

[Anonymous No.18984145]

>>18983701
So you believe in eternal recurrence? Thats not exactly atheistic

[Anonymous No.18984167]

>>18984144
>It's malfunction, may entitle the active introduction of heat, into the isolated insides of the freezer, speeding up the process. (a fast process)
>Rather than the passive option of unplugging, and letting heat slowly seep in through the isolation from it's surroundings. (a slow process)
It's very late here, and I lost any interest in the discussion
Have this (You)

[Anonymous No.18984173]

>>18984021
Because that would fit the profile.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!bGBGaUpA8kS No.18984175]

>>18981290
https://youtu.be/OTuZMQt6w5c

[Anonymous No.18984221]

>>18984101
>From the perspective of any given observer, it ceases to function immediately as the power source ceases
That's not how travel time and light speed lag works, retard. This is not a case of relativity, or reference frames.
If I'm calling someone on Mars, there is a 3 minute signal delay for my radio waves to get to them. From the "perspective of any given observer" (whatever that is supposed to mean, lmao) it will not appear as though my call is instantaneous.

This is the case of no processes in nature being instantaneous(?Eh, I don't know enough about this), at least there cannot be in relationships between events that are spatially removed from each other (not occupying the same location)
The electricity not traveling from the power plant instantaneously, it's traveling at slightly less than the speed of light, it takes a few picoseconds, or whatever, a measurable unit of time.

This applies to literally all causal relationships in nature (I think), there is travel time. Things are not ideal.
And therefore Aristotle's logic fails to describe reality.

[Anonymous No.18984259]

>>18983678
A heretic according to whom? Like I said I'm a mere theist, not a Christian or a Muslim. As for Faith Gods existence is knowable simply through pure human reason

[Anonymous No.18984495]

>>18981380
Checkmate.

[Anonymous No.18984757]

>>18983722
Why can't it be a self contained loop?
There are three points in a circle. When one reaches the other, it stops moving and transfers the speed to the point it touched. If the points start stationary, then there will be no movement. If one of the point start as moving, there always will be movement. Same goes for an infinite amount of points
>So who moved the point at the start?
This is the same argument as "someone must have created the points". The points are. We can observe them moving, and we can infer that if their origin acted like they do now, someone must have "placed" them and "moved" them, but this is the same assumption as "something cannot come out of nothing". You are assuming that this is not what always has been, and perhaps always will be (in fact, you are assuming there was a start scenario), and you are assuming that they couldn't have manifested spontaneously.

[Anonymous No.18984775]

>>18983930
God, you are speaking sense and everyone here is too caught up in the example to see your argument.
I'll restate it:
The fridge is ALREADY cold. The sun is ALREADY hot. The fridge has "potential" to turn electricity to cold (to move heat to the back of the fridge for all you nitpickers), but since it has already been working for a while, it is now cold. This coldness is not reliant on the power plant - the fridge IS COLD. If you disconnect the power, it will stop GENERATING cold, but the coldness in it will act upon the world until it is spent by the interaction (heat will act upon the cold for the nitpickers)
Here's a better example: the seed and pot have potential to be a plant, yes, but there ALREADY is dirt there. If you try to push your finger into the dirt, that dirt will resist you. The seed is ALREADY a seed. If you eat it, you will gain nutrition. If you pour water on it, a process will start which the ingredients for are ALREADY in the seed.

[Anonymous No.18984806]

>>18982750
I think when apologetics speak of minds they mean something that is like a mind, something that has to make a decision.

[Anonymous No.18984818]

>>18984259
Okay tgen, how do you know there's just one, and not multiple gods? Does this god of yours intervene into reality, or doesn't he care? How does this god, which is apparently completely neutral, differ in any way from the laws of physics? Finally, can we throw out all of the Bibles and Qurans as well, since according to you, those are totally useless, don't tell us anything about reality and are better used to fuel a fire to keep us warm wgen it's cold?

Also, keep in mind that all of this just refers to the final step of Aquinas of calling tge unmoved mover 'God' for no particular reason. We haven't even adressed the horrendously flawed reasoning of Aquinas itself

[Anonymous No.18984836]

>>18984818
>Okay tgen, how do you know there's just one, and not multiple gods?
By the fact that the definition we use for God allows only one. If anything else existed that had all the properties that God does then it would simply be God since God is not physical. Law of identity. 1 is identical to 1 by definition.

I'll pre-empt the usual objection by clarifying this is NOT just defining that there simply is one God and begging the question. The issue is that logically if God is a simple monad and all being derives from God (The classical definition of God according to Classical Theism) then you can't have multiplicity because to say there is more than one God is to split the absolute unity of God into multiple parts and defeating the point of God as being the absolutely simple and unified source of all multiplicity in being.

>How does this god, which is apparently completely neutral, differ in any way from the laws of physics?
God transcends the physical and as such transcends physics. Remember that metaphysics is the science of inferring what exists beyond the physical from the facts we can discern about the physical.

[Anonymous No.18984850]

>>18983930
dude, you're the most low IQ retarded person i've the comically pleasure to read on /lit/

[Anonymous No.18984872]

What was Aquinas IQ?

[Anonymous No.18984906]

>>18981290
He's not original. Greeks came up with all of that and they weren't Christians.

[Anonymous No.18984917]

>>18984836
>By the fact that the definition we use for God allows only one.
Which you just assert and don't demonstrate

>God transcends the physical and as such transcends physics.
Which you also assert and don't demonstrate.

Also, in neither of these cases do you present a case in which you're certainly incorrect, which is the main reason why types like you and Scholasticism isn't take seriously by anyone outside of their tardy group of pseudo-philosophers

[Anonymous No.18984946]

>>18984836
>Anon obliterates the concept of the Divine Trinity
Pretty funny stuff anon, but the overwhelming majority of Christians will insist on God being composed of three distinct components, thus "defeating the point of God as being the absolutely simple and unified source of all multiplicity in being."

[Anonymous No.18984952]

>>18984872
90 tops

[Anonymous No.18985372]

>>18983876
>While the freezer has no actuality, and has simply potential, which is being actualized by the power plant.
That's not an accurate statement... if the freezer is actualized then obviously it has actuality lol

>>18983930
In your first example you were wrong by the way, because OP's discussion would be about if there were no power plant in the first place, not just removing one that already has been (though that is something OP can account for).

>>18984221
>And therefore Aristotle's logic fails to describe reality.
You repeat this but is your counter "things occur in time", something that isn't relevant for OPs argument nor St. Aquinas' version? Whether they occur simultaneously or not it doesn't change that the first is necessary for the second. If the power plant is turned off, the freezer will stop operating the same as when it has power. If the power plant never existed, the freezer would not have frozen anything.

>>18984946
>overwhelming majority of Christians will insist on God being composed of three distinct components,
No, we do not. Three persons, one substance. Three distinct components sounds like three distinct substances to me.

>>18984917
>Which you also assert and don't demonstrate.
It's a necessary consequence of OPs argument. If "the universe" is the system, then obviously everything in it, which is everything material, must be actualized by K. But if everything material is actualized by K, then K can't be anything material (since K is not the cause of itself). Otherwise, the material K is made of needs explanation.... so we find that what we thought was K was really not K, and keep going until we reach the real K.
>Which you just assert and don't demonstrate
OPs argument is about the K that actualized the system. It's not clear that there could be more than one K that actualizes the system. Perhaps you should elaborate further for them.
>Also, in neither of these cases do you present a case in which you're certainly incorrect,
What does this even mean? Maybe you should spend more time reading OP and thinking about what he is saying than just trying to insult him. You're not good enough for either honestly.

[Anonymous No.18985416]

>>18984221
>From the "perspective of any given observer"
Yes, it will. If you're watching someone on Mars as you speak to them on the phone, through a telescope, their lips will move exactly as they talk on the phone, assuming there is no signal processing latency between the two phones. But that latency would be very minor and would always only be a static difference no matter how far away the two people are. You don't really understand relativity if you don't get this. This is high school level material.

[Anonymous No.18985437]

>>18981290
But what cause K?

Btfo.

[Anonymous No.18985443]

>>18985416
>>18984221
This latency is not a given either, it is only the case if there is any signal processing. It's possible to eliminate it entirely via direct radio comms.
>The electricity not traveling from the power plant instantaneously,
Never said it was. The movement of the electrical charges, again, is not the point. You seem to be intellectually stuck on irrelevant details (which means metaphysics is probably not for you, or you are just extremely new to subtler thinking). Do you know what causes the electrons to move? The electrical potential between the two poles of the inductor, which is the "energy source" the example used. The electrical charges are moved by the singular application of a positive and negative electrical potential of the two nodes at the energy source, assuming a regular single phase electrical system. Nothing here moves, it only forces (literally) the charges to circulate in a current near the speed of light. As soon as this potential is applied, no matter how fast the electrons are moving, work is done on the gas compressor.

[Anonymous No.18985470]

>>18984946
You obviously haven't read Aquinas since he defends the Trinity and Gods absolute simplicity both at once. Regardless Simplicity is so vital to the understanding of Classical Theism that Aquinas has it as his second article in the Summa. The fact is if you don't understand Divine Simplicity then you're not in a position to state the likelihood of theism being correct.

[Anonymous No.18985497]

>>18984917
>Which you just assert and don't demonstrate
I'm not going to demonstrate it for you in a 4chan post. Read the Enneads if you want it demonstrated.

[Anonymous No.18985539]

>>18985372
>What does this even mean?
This is called falsifiability. It seperates actual robust knowledge from pseudo-philosophical bullshit like this is

>>>18985497
So it's so true that you can't demonstrate it?

[Anonymous No.18985566]

>>18985539
You are a complete pseud
>Muh falsifiability
You can't make this the measure of true knowledge retard otherwise you have to claim all people are P-Zombies.

[Anonymous No.18985607]

>>18985539
I believe you are mistaken on falsifiability here. Can you explain what falsifiable means in the context of OPs argument, why you believe OPs argument is not falsifiable, then also explain how it is a tautology (you'll find this is related when you attempt to do the first), then also please explain how supposing OPs argument contains nothing falsifiable it removes the validity of his argument.

[Anonymous No.18985665]

>>18981290
Such arguments don't get most theists very far, even if it proves the existence of *a* god it doesnt help much to prove how your religion is the one and only truth

Let's say you're right: now what? Is it Allah? Vishnu? The god of some random african tribe?
Christianity is no different from all the false religions
So christians try to pull something else out of their ass that they think is prove of christianity specifically being the truth,
and with that then there isn't even a need for the "but what created the universe" argument

[Anonymous No.18985692]

>>18985665
I see this response a lot and I don't really understand it. If the point is to disprove atheism then proving ANY God is sufficient? Why do atheists play this obvious motte and bailey game where they define atheism as a lack of belief then claim that an argument for theism is only useful if it proves Christianity or Islam right?

The first step in opening a dialogue with an atbeist is showing that it is rational to believe God exists. These arguments do that. Once we're on the same page then we can discuss which God ot is but it seems utterly pointless to try and prove Christianity is true to a person with such a warped worldview that they fail to recognize the most obvious truth that God exists

[Anonymous No.18985719]

>>18985692
All "monotheist" people in the past (including non-abrahamists) used to believe that there is just ONE God, be it that of Islam, Christianity or whatever. The question isn't which God is real, but which understanding of God is true. For example, from a christian medieval point of view, Islam wasn't some other religion like the academics like to put it, but a heresy.

[Anonymous No.18985723]

>>18985665

[Anonymous No.18985742]

>>18985692
> then claim that an argument for theism is only useful if it proves Christianity or Islam right?
99% of people who argue for a creator do so to prove their own religion true. It's not us atheists.
Because most theists will lose interest with the most likely answer to who this "god" is: a dark, cold, uncaring force of nature that only created humanity as a side effect to creating a vast, pointless universe

[Anonymous No.18985747]

>>18981290
>>1) A system X cannot be generated by itself.
He disproved God

[Anonymous No.18985748]

>>18985719
Right but I don't expect any atheist to know that. It's easier to just go along with their conceit that different monotheistic religions have different Gods and use it against them. Since they define atheism so loosely demonstrating ANY God exists is enough to defeat atheism and its trivially easy to prove mere theism.

[Anonymous No.18986172]

>>18985443
This got off-tacked into freezers and light speed
my point was supposed to be, that no actualization of potential in nature is instant, which gets to another point
(also it's relevant if one talk about causal relationships in a timeless space)
the first member in the chain having the power, the later members simply being instruments that derive their power from the first, nothing in nature works like that, things are always working
both ways, "every action has an equal and opposite reaction"
Unless you are trying to describe entropy in the most roundabout way.

Infinitely long paintbrush is painting, there must be someone on the other end operating it right now? No
We know how this stuff works in physics, tip of an infinitely long brush would literally never move, because the movement in not conveyed instantaneously, doesn't say the object itself is impossible, just that it wouldn't move.
Again, not super important. And the argument against the impossibility of infinite regress would also apply to the impossibility of an infinite brush, yeah?
Why even use an example that is impossible by the argument's own premises?

[Anonymous No.18986191]

>>18985748
>Since they define atheism so loosely demonstrating ANY God exists is enough to defeat atheism
What is a God? If I define my cat as God, do I "defeat atheism" by showing you my cat?
You are literally doing the same thing, by calling a first cause, God. I'm plenty happy calling it an unknown natural process.

[Anonymous No.18986227]

>>18983505
Christ did. Christ and Christianity are two different entities. There has only been one "true" Christian.

[Anonymous No.18986337]

>>18981290
>7) God is K, the uncaused reason that causes system X
Prime Mover does not necessarily equal Jewish Tribal God. Especially since one can read Genesis with J-God as a Demiurgos-the World Mind that orders reality, NOT the Prime Mover-the One that causes it.

[Anonymous No.18986475]

>>18981290
The conclusion doesn't even follow from the premises, what a mess of a post.
When Thomists send their people, they are not sending their best

[Anonymous No.18986488]

>>18986475
Actually,

They are.

[Anonymous No.18986519]

>>18986488
Are you saying that the best Thomists cannot make formally valid arguments? That would be pretty embarrassing.

[Anonymous No.18987116]

>>18986519
my takeaway was that, even the best Thomists, are not very good

[Anonymous No.18988113]

>>18981403
Good fucking Lord there always has to be a seething fedora-tipping faggot boiling every single thing dow to women and sex. Take off your trench coat, it's still just early September, put that katana back in your closet, close Reddit and go for a walk.

[Anonymous No.18988121]

>>18985470
>3 is actually 1
Holy shit, I was just kidding but maybe Aquinas' IQ really was sub 90

[Anonymous No.18988124]

>>18981405
Xenophanes, Parmenides’ teacher invented Greek monotheism.

[Anonymous No.18988191]

>>18985372
>Three persons
Three God Persons? Ah, so polytheism!

[Anonymous No.18988281]

>>18988124
And made it quite clear that Spinoza was right by arguing against a perfect deity who had personhood

[Anonymous No.18988358]

>>18982404
Wrong. Christ's Resurrection proves Christianity.

https://www.amazon.com/Resurrection-Christian-Origins-Question-Vol/dp/0800626796

[Anonymous No.18988478]

>>18988358
The Flying Spaghetti Monster is resurrected ever time I make Spaghetti, thus proving he is the real uncaused cause!

[Anonymous No.18989795]

>>18981709
Buddhists BTFO

[Anonymous No.18990351]

>>18981290
Why can't things be self-caused?

[Anonymous No.18991467]

>>18981290
An in-depth analysis and refutation of Aquinas' both first and third way.
First way
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkG-MlZqjRg
Third way
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jsMYzACy2I

[Buddhist No.18991511]

>>18981709
You assume reality to be good, purposive, and nice.

Oh cunt, prepare to be raped.

All buddhists are preraped.

[Anonymous No.18991540]

>>18991467
This guy is a pseud.

[Anonymous No.18991648]

>>18981403
>“There is no truth”
>makes an absolute statement while denying absolutes
>Doesn’t recognize inherent contradiction
>Deliberately makes a strawman fallacy

Opinion discarded.

[Anonymous No.18991668]

>>18988191
>”…three persons therefore polytheism”

Are all atheistfags reading comprehension as bad as yours?

[Anonymous No.18991674]

Atheism is a sect of methodism

[Anonymous No.18991675]

>>18991668
not an argument christshit

[Anonymous No.18991697]

>>18985692

Pretty much everything you said is true, anon. Fedoracucks who get BTFO’D with Aquinas and barely stand on their philosophical legs just adopt that “red herring” strategy that you mentioned to hard cope with the demise of their unbelief.

[Anonymous No.18991720]

>>18982404
> arguments for Deism

Great fuckin’ job parroting Rationwiki’s “refutation” of Aquinas’ arguement. Such pathetic midwittery from Fedoracucks.

[Anonymous No.18991731]

>>18991675
Kek. Whoever said I was making arguments?

[Anonymous No.18991736]

>>18991540
you clearly don't know anything about him. Watch the video then comment.

[Anonymous No.18991765]

>>18988191
Read a book lmao. The trinity is one of the most well elaborated things in christianity because of how many heresies pop up about it. You can start with:
On the Trinity by St. Augustine
>https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1301.htm
On Not Three Gods by St. Gregory of Nyssa
>https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2905.htm

[Anonymous No.18991771]

>>18991736
I already skipped to the part about eternalism and as soon as I hit play he was already making mistakes about Aristotle, and he came up with an invented dichotomy between "relative" and "Absolute" purely actual actualizers (which was entirely contrived by him and is not a meaningful distinction). Then he goes on to the regular pseud-style argument of claiming that the First Way is invalid because it makes a presupposition that eternalism is false, which is basically as stupid as saying mathematics is wrong because it makes the unwarranted presupposition that 1 = 1. Not going to watch an hour long video if it is full of mistakes and facile childish struggling against truth like this, it's just not worth it. It's like Nietzsche when he tried to prove the law of identity wrong by showing that nothing really weighs the same. It's retarded, and irritating to even engage with.

[Anonymous No.18992148]

>>18981290
This doesn't even get close to proving theism though.

[Anonymous No.18992810]

>>18991771
>he was already making mistakes about Aristotle
he didn't even mention him
>he came up with an invented dichotomy between "relative" and "Absolute" purely actual actualizers (which was entirely contrived by him and is not a meaningful distinction)
false and misleading, he mentioned that, that distinction is made by theist philosopher Rob Koons in defense of the first way against eternalism
>he goes on to the regular pseud-style argument of claiming that the First Way is invalid because it makes a presupposition that eternalism is false
no he did not, lets see what he said
from 14:50
"arguably eternalism is at least rationally defensible right i mean a significant portion of contemporary philosophers of time and physicists accept eternalism and many formidable theists are among them so moreover any argument which presupposes its falsity has arguably a major hurdle to overcome in establishing this presupposition"

pseud filtered by an actual philosopher, try harder

[Anonymous No.18992976]

Damn this thread is still up, christcucks are so tiresome.

[Anonymous No.18993002]

>>18992976
seethe and cope fedoratard

[Anonymous No.18993306]

>>18991540
what is the opposite of a pseud? someone that is genuine?
he appears to be literally the opposite of a pseud, he (is working on?) on a degree in degree specific relevant field of the topic
unless you just want to rule out the possibility of him being a philosopher of religion because he's a "child"?
got his name on published papers, enough clout to bug actual big names to talk to him on a tiny YouTube channel

If that's how you define pseud, you are working with strange language

[Anonymous No.18993505]

>>18991674
No. Atheism is a word, who people have not really agreed upon what definition to go with.
It really irks me, when Christians insist that I'm not an Atheist, or being retarded when using that label: No, you are an Agnostic!

I don't believe we can know anything with absolute certainty. That DOES NOT mean I believe all knowledge is just whatever people feels like, subjective opinion.
It means I don't believe we need to know, ,knowledge, with 100% degree confidence, for it to qualify as knowledge. (I don't believe anyone can, and think people who claim we can, have never succeeded in demonstration how, and therefore are retarded and irrational)

Picking the moniker Agnostic, in regards my stance on God: "There is no God (Abrahamic Christian God, whatever)". Simply on account of my fallibilism is dumb.
"There is no God.", in my view, would be synonymous with: "There is no good reasons to believe God is real, rather than imaginary." right? It means the same thing to me.

I fucking hate being called Agnostic, btw. Like it somehow makes it sound like I'm on the fence in regards in my faith in God. "Maybe he real, maybe he not. 50/50???" I'm not.
Orwellian language.

That said. It's not like I'm right. And Christians are wrong. They are words, so it literally depend on what definitions you go with.
just feel like there is a huge failure of meaning, on the standard definition Christians go with, when applied to my VERY rational worldview.

[Anonymous No.18993680]

>>18981290
Scholasticism literally leads to atheism. You're delusional and retarded.

[Anonymous No.18993701]

>>18981290
>>18981350
>the world is flat
>oh turns out its round

>time is flat/linear
...........

you are probably to fucking retarded to even understand what I'm saying

it is interesting how semitic cultures view time as linear, since the weather aside from rain is always the same in their desert shithole

while europeans traditionally viewed time as cyclical (ouroboros for example)

it's even more interesting how these retarded sandniggers with their faulty view of reality managed to force it on people stronger and better than them by bribing their guardians to repeat lies

[Anonymous No.18993727]

>>18983114
Don't quite get what you mean, God is perfect because of his omnipotence, and because of that entirely actual with no potency, how could God be omnipotent if he has a telos? Being entirely act his end is himself, and being eternal he always is himself, how could we understand something to be perfect unless it was perfectly itself? This is why goodness is analogous to God, if Goodness was applicable to God it would be a cause of him and therefore he would not be entirely act, nor the first cause, because God is the cause of all things, insofar as they participate in being, acting in accordance with their nature, being dependent upon the first cause in all things, they strive towards a perfection of their own determined by their form, in rational beings they look within the perfection to the act of perfection itself, the exemplar of self sufficiency and spring of all powers, who to know is to be, as knowledge is possession, and there is nothing within that the first cause doesn't contain, being entirely act

[Anonymous No.18993839]

>>18981290
>>18981350
Why such a powerful god, who has limitless power, would ask for prayers and to people to believe in him ?

[Anonymous No.18993854]

>>18993727
>A flaw or imperfection is a potentiality, and something purely actual would not have any imperfections and so would be perfect.
A perfect circle has no flaws. It does not have any potentialities,
By your logic a perfect circle would also be purely actual.

[Anonymous No.18993915]

I would start by demonstrating how potentiality and actuality are real things, rather than words invented by humans to (poorly) describe naturalistic processes

[Anonymous No.18993924]

How do Thomists overcome the hurdle Descartes threw at them? That the thinker precedes the object perceived making immediate knowledge of external reality impossible?

[Anonymous No.18993930]

Aquinas forgot to show why, or possibly how, his God concept, could be personal, or have a mind capable of love, lmao
those are pretty important attributes for a certain group of people..

[Anonymous No.18993949]

>>18993930
Oh yeah, the immutability thing
How does that work? Please explain why it does not imply that such a God would remain inert forever. It directly contradicts why there is something, rather than nothing.
An immutable first cause, would be immutable.. and logically remain so. How does it cause anything?

[Anonymous No.18993994]

>>18981290
> X cannot be the cause of K
wrong. since K is not constrained by the normal rules of causation it is entirely possible that it is caused by X.
you can't exempt K from some of the rules of causation while keeping others in place, its a bad argument made around your own personal biases.

[Anonymous No.18994007]

>>18981350
once you get outside of space and time there is no reason to believe its a line of causality you dipshit. what if we end up with two things that created each other?

[Anonymous No.18994026]

>>18981709
sophistry that devolves into a word game at the end

[Anonymous No.18994056]

>>18981388
Based Humechad.

[Anonymous No.18994077]

>>18993949
for the neoplatonists that he is plagiarizing it is more like the first principle creates the intermediary that creates the universe. there is no time relationship between them, its more like the second is logically dependent on the first

[Anonymous No.18994097]

>>18993994
what don't you understand of "K is uncaused"?

[Anonymous No.18994110]

>>18993854
Things like perfect circles and numbers are ideas, dependant upon the mind knowing them, actualising them, in God they are known by him in knowing himself, knowing all that could be, things can be entirely act and still have potential, incorporeal angels can sin, which is a privation of their nature, none the less as spiritual beings they are not corruptible like matter, and entirely act, minds are the same, possessing knowledge for them is not a substantial change, being spirit they contain things without corrupting them or itself, remain sheer act, dependant upon the entirely act actualiser

[Anonymous No.18994137]

>>18981290
My pseudo-intellectual interpretation of God and the notion of effect without cause is:
>Simulation Theory is correct
>Since we are a simulation, we are simplified
>It is extraordinarily unlikely we are the 'first' simulation
>This means we are actually a simulation created by a simulation created by a simulation and so on however many layers deep
>As a result our simulated existence is a heavily simplified, dumbed down, version of reality
Presuming this is all correct it is impossible for us to ever perceive or conceive of the truth behind reality and its origins. We are a utterly diluted descendant of countless dilutions of the truth.

[Anonymous No.18994513]

>>18994097
If K-God is uncaused, I see no reason why it couldn't be just some uncaused natural thing instead

[Anonymous No.18994550]

>>18994110
>Things like perfect circles and numbers are ideas
No. They are immaterial. Just like God.

[Anonymous No.18994582]

>>18991668
Three person aspects of God make it a polytheistic religion, rage more at your own religions incoherency

[Anonymous No.18994595]

>>18991765
3 God persons equals polytheism. Everything denying this is just raging cope from a clutch of hysterics who can't reconcile the fact that their "monotheism" actually contains 3 Gods and is therefore polytheism, destroying their precious idea of the unity of God. It's actually kind of hilarious viewing it from the outside.

[Anonymous No.18994604]

>>18994097
there is no reason that K has to be uncaused. it could be in a circular relationship with L where both K and L caused each other.

[Anonymous No.18994614]

>>18981290
What the hell does Thomas Aquinas know about modern cosmology? zero zilch nada zip
Can't "logic" your way into it - fag

[Anonymous No.18994620]

>>18993930
He didnt forget any of that

[Anonymous No.18994631]

>>18981350
And you CAN comprehend omniscience? What an utter shit

[Anonymous No.18994686]

>>18994513
yes there's nothing more natural than God.

[Anonymous No.18994714]

>>18994604
I think that definitely challenges logic. it isn't any different to something causing itself, which we agreed on the first premise that it's impossible.

[Anonymous No.18994716]

>>18981290
And then that means that you must fuck children? I'm sorry, I just don't see which premise secures the childfucking and hence, that this is an argument for a *catholic* theology, rather than just some vague metaphysical principle.

[Anonymous No.18994722]

>>18994550
What does it matter if they are immaterial? Numbers don't exist, right?

[Anonymous No.18994728]

>>18994716
Because it isn't an argument for Catholic theology even when you pretend it is to derail the thread.

[Anonymous No.18994734]

Love these threads, always good to help people on their spiritual journey

[Anonymous No.18994740]

>>18994614
I don't see the logical contradiction with cosmology, his principles can still apply without stretching the imagination
It's a modern understanding of physics + the Aristotelian causes that are unpalatable

[Anonymous No.18994753]

>>18994686
God is literally supernatural

[Anonymous No.18994791]

>>18994513
because nature is in X and K is outside X.

[Anonymous No.18994815]

I don't see why it follows from a thing being "purely actual", that is needs to be ALL of actuality, rather than the actuality being split among two, or 7000 pure actualities (neither did Aristotle, btw)

[Anonymous No.18994829]

>>18994791
that's just definitional, and obviously the wrong definition given what I said

[Anonymous No.18994869]

quick lesson for the tards

[Anonymous No.18994905]

>>18982431
>An infinite chain of boxcars will move... If they are in orbit.
that is not how physics works. orbit is not some sort of magic perpetual motion. it requires momentum and eventually that momentum runs out and things crash into the object that they were orbiting.

[Anonymous No.18994942]

>>18994829
Nature and the universe are a system X. K is forced to be outside nature and it's simple. K is metaphysical.

[Anonymous No.18994962]

>>18994869
Nah, relationships derive from a thing's ontology.
An example is pluripotent stem cells. They self-arrange themselves and evolve into heart, lungs etc based on where they are. To a lesser extent gravity and thermodynamics explain what particles will necessarily do but until we have the proper objects we risk accounting actions to objects that may be socially constructed or completely unaccounted for. So until then you have to treat the Being as being inductive of the action and even still you would have to have the Being that accounts for that Being all the way back.

[Anonymous No.18995025]

>>18994869
A principle "outside causality" cannot be caused however. Furthermore, if there were more than one uncaused "principles" they would be the same, since being outside of causality makes them also outside of number (that's how God is one and three).

[Anonymous No.18995046]

>>18995025
Can you prove this? Just anecdotally gravity isn't caused separate of mass but is a derivation of mass.

[Anonymous No.18995053]

>>18994942
All-powerful un-caused nature that pokes it's ass outside system X

[Anonymous No.18995077]

>>18995046
No I can't because we're talking about metaphysics not about sensible things.

[Anonymous No.18995084]

>>18995053
Yeah well like a nature outside nature that is perfectly simple and non-physical, sounds God to me.

[Anonymous No.18995093]

>>18995025
>A principle "outside causality" cannot be caused
by 'causality' i mean the constraint whereby things have to be caused by something preceding them in time. chains of ordered causes.
>Furthermore, if there were more than one uncaused "principles" they would be the same, since being outside of causality makes them also outside of number
because...?

[Anonymous No.18995100]

>>18995077
We can use logic. If you assert something must be true then we have a standard for induction in which case it must be some set which can deduce that true thing.
This extends past material things.

[Anonymous No.18995112]

>>18994962
>An example is pluripotent stem cells
Any reason you picked stem cells, instead of literally anything made from matter?
It's the same explanation, things do what they do because of physics, right? Or rather physics describe what they do, but things tend to act in a predictable manner

[Anonymous No.18995114]

>>18995077
>>18995100
Further we can continue this project going upwards and downwards based on how well the framework predicts reality. We have a verification process in universality of application of framework and a deductive process that guarantees more knowledge each iteration.

[Anonymous No.18995129]

>>18995112
I picked stem cells because it's a simple example but yeah similarly gravity or thermodynamics are accounted for in mass but those aren't as well-defined. In sociological truths there is similarly this relation of ontology precedes relationships. Even in metaphysics we see ontology informs epistemology which is a type of relationship derived from ontology.

[Anonymous No.18995133]

>>18995025
>if there were more than one uncaused "principles" they would be the same, since being outside of causality makes them also outside of number (that's how God is one and three).
I reject this. Based on you just parroting the Aquinas JPG, rather than demonstrating why it's the case
no actually fuck you, that's just dogma and sloganing

[Anonymous No.18995152]

>>18981290
>7) God is K, the uncaused reason that causes system X
Why? This seems entirely baseless. Unless you're just saying "God" is the name of K, which is perfectly fine, but the term "God" brings a lot of baggage that is entirely separate to the claim in the argument.

[Anonymous No.18995154]

>>18995100
>We can use logic.
What do you think logic is?
I think logic is a formal language invent by humans, based on looking at reality, that attempts to describe reality.

[Anonymous No.18995182]

>>18995154
Logic is the ontological nature of relationships in a more abstract sense than measurement. There's no ontological primitive to borrow from like there is in biology (CHNOPS) etc so we're mostly just looking at the derivation of that object but no there's a social construct trying to understand the ontologically real concept.

[Anonymous No.18995192]

>>18995152
Because arguments listed on the bottom of this picture >>18981709
But you generally don't see modern Thomist standing up as fervently for these, they are a LOT harder to defend (lmao)

[Anonymous No.18995250]

>>18995093
>>18995133
This has nothing to do with Aquinas, and I don't care if you reject it because it's dogmatic. This pertains to a domain that is alien to any Atheist. Where there is number there is composition and difference. K must be perfectly simple since composition means an X system, and K must not be X, since that would mean another K2 and so on. So K being perfectly simple means that there cannot be another perfectly simple K2 as that would be the same K, since individuation is created by difference and difference by composition. So you see, where there are thousands of Ks or three persons of the trinity, those are all equal in the divine simplicity that is beyond composition, and this is what I mean by "being outside of number".

[Anonymous No.18995256]

>>18995100
You are using logic to get at the possibility that we can "fact check" any past material thing? Or am I misunderstanding

Physicist getting pretty confident in there being permanent information loss in nature (recent development the past 1 year, in regards to black holes)
but like, how do you actually prove that? there will always remain the option that there is something they don't know

Same thing if nature is non-deterministic, if actual random events occur. (hard to backtrack from those) Say with quantum stuff. Scientist like to say they do now, that things are truly random at certain levels in nature.
The theory about Hidden Variables used to be more popular, fallen out of fashion. But, I'm thinking; It's literally unfalsifiable! After all, they are HIDDEN.

If I want my deterministic universe, I can have it. No issues.

[Anonymous No.18995257]

>>18988124
>Greek monotheism
No such thing.

[Anonymous No.18995260]

>>18982420
He earned it for being right and based enough to say so.

[Anonymous No.18995266]

>>18995250
>Where there is number there is composition and difference. K must be perfectly simple since composition means an X system, and K must not be X, since that would mean another K2 and so on.
you can assert that any multiplicity would require a K2 but you have yet to actually show it.

[Anonymous No.18995272]

>>18995250
Sure, if you define one, as three
You got no problem with trinity

Same thing with defining evil, as.. not-evil
solves the problem of evil super easy, peak apologetics

[Anonymous No.18995292]

>>18995266
it's shown in the original argument that every system X needs a K. If K is composed, then it needs a K2.

[Anonymous No.18995314]

>>18995292
no, it is shown that X systems which exist within time require a K. Therefore a K (outside of time) that is composed would not require a K2.

[Anonymous No.18995316]

>>18995256
Well I'm a determinist (or absolutist in modal terms but modal logic has bad metaphysics).
Either way physics imports math through volume (p = m/v). We can account for growth in knowledge by allowing universalities in this, even if changes occur, we can continue developing.

[Anonymous No.18995332]

>>18995256
>>18995316
So in any sense we can limit nature (and its possible "degradation") by our growth in math.

[Anonymous No.18995361]

>>18981290
>>18981350
Both of these make perfect sense, but why did this primordial beginning only reveal itself to a tribe of sapient primates in Judea circa 4000 years ago?
I guess what I'm trying to get at is: why does the undeniable fact that something eternal must exist mean that I can't fuck unless the priest lets me?

[Anonymous No.18995395]

Assuming it is purely random for the sake of argument.
How come a random natural process like radioactive decay doesn't count as being uncaused?

I get that it didn't create itself. But there is still an effect, with an unaccounted cause

[Anonymous No.18995408]

>>18995361
Actual question: Are you joking/trolling? Or truly that clueless to the topic?

[Anonymous No.18995412]

>>18995395
>unaccounted for
>therefore random/no actual cause
???
Are you using an iterably deductible logic for this argument?

[Anonymous No.18995442]

>>18995412
No, I guess this would be using.. inductive reasoned(?) cause and effects, knowledge attainted through an empiric process

It just sits there inert without anything acting on it. Then it decays, or doesn't.
If it feels like decays, it feels easily intuitive to me, to think it did so without a cause

[Anonymous No.18995451]

>>18981290
it destroys atheists but in only proves actually logical gods like the BRAHAM or the ONE instead of autistic kike shit like YHWH

[Anonymous No.18995461]

>>18995442
Ig I'm not sure what you think decaying is. For instance we know gravity is derived from mass so in this same sense you can easily say the degradation of gravity can change a molecule's mass. I'm just not sure what you're saying is in any way a justification for no-cause-changes.

[Anonymous No.18995473]

>>18983798
>I remove the power plant; my freezer will still remain cold for a good while, the ice will freeze. Flat out wrong.
Atheists everybody

[Anonymous No.18995492]

>>18995461
Thinking of the decay simply as an event. (An effect? As in cause and effect, but the cause is missing)
Any event without a chain of causes that could be traced backwards to a first cause would work for my purpose here.

[Anonymous No.18995495]

>>18995314
but that's contradictory, if K it's outside of time it cannot be composed, since composition requires time and space. Precisely because K cannot be composed that it must be outside of time.

[Anonymous No.18995504]

>>18995495
why does composition require time

[Anonymous No.18995538]

>>18995442
>inductive reasoned, knowledge attainted through an empiric process
Aquinas is doing the same thing to obtain his premises, btw
That's how we get "> A system X cannot be generated by itself." and " A system X has to be caused or uncaused", the uniformity of nature required for the argument to be convincing.

[Anonymous No.18995561]

>>18995504
because time is extensive quality. a being without time exists without differences since there is no time in which differences can be applied. time is a base in which qualifications can be set. This is how God "in the beginning" created, because there couldn't be anything different than God before time existed.

[Anonymous No.18995569]

>>18995492
Well the fact that mass itself derives causation down the pipeline explains that so long as there is mass the chain of causes exists there.

[Anonymous No.18995574]

>>18995495
>composition requires time and space
Behold my timeless and spaceless composition
It's and abstract concept, a composite word!
Football

It's composed of the concepts, foot, and ball. It's a sport enjoyed by humans.
And don't try to say a composite has to be material, God certainly isn't

[Anonymous No.18995624]

>>18995569
To me, that explains why it exists, not when or why an event occurred.

[Anonymous No.18995637]

>>18995624
You have to see what having mass implies as it implies some relationship necessarily (example was in gravity but heat etc also work). In either sense we can say as long as there is mass and we can say mass accounts for all change (unless we find higgs to not be scalar and find a more scalar boson) then we can verify all change even if the physics isn't caught up to deduce it yet.

[Anonymous No.18995671]

>>18995637
Does that still count at purely random (for the sake of argument), then?

[Anonymous No.18995699]

>>18995671
What would be materially purely random under mass?
1, ontology necessarily informs the relationships under it. This applies w mass.
2, so long as we have mass we can verify any causation (relationship under mass) with mass.
By those two in syllogism we know there is nothing purely random. Now an unaccounted for cause in physics would have to be w an element for native or fundamental than mass but you haven't introduced any motivation to ridding mass as the primary object to deduce relationships, or causation, from.

[Anonymous No.18995775]

What exactly does Aquinas call the force that moves a thing from potentiality to actuality? Or is thinking in forces as such a post Newtonian thing

[Anonymous No.18995810]

>>18995775
No that's a fair question I think it would be some kind of relationship w God particularly defined. Idk what Aristotle called it but he definitely needed it to do science.

[Anonymous No.18995856]

>>18994614
modern cosmology uses the same exact logic to prove the finitude of time that these old scholastic philosophers did, you absolute brainlet.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0110012.pdf

[Anonymous No.18995872]

>>18995775
>What exactly does Aquinas call the force that moves a thing from potentiality to actuality?
the logos. Come on anon, this is basic Christian theology.

[Anonymous No.18995889]

>>18995775
>>18995872
This kinda shows why the old Catholic Church sought to have a stranglehold on science as they rightfully saw it as their domain. Too bad Aristotelianism is a bad metaphysics for it tho.

[Anonymous No.18995946]

>>18995856
most modern cosmologist does claim a finite past...

[Anonymous No.18996183]

>>18981290
>1) A system X cannot be generated by itself.
Damn. Aquinas refuted atheism AND God?

[Anonymous No.18997320]

>>18995872
Can you explain more? How does the logos actualize the liquid form of water from ice? Why is the logos more sensible than mechanical forces? And in what way does it pervade and interact wifh the substances at hand?