/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.22757849]

If one accepts the Principle of Sufficient Reason as true, does that mean they naturally must accept the existence of God vis a vis cosmological arguments?

[Anonymous No.22757851]

It depends what you mean by God, you can only posit a first principle using those arguments. The content of the first principle has to be reached by other means, like revelation or contemplative mysticism.

[Anonymous No.22757852]

>>22757849
Well, if we think of cosmological arguments as, broadly speaking, going like this:

There is an actual contingent. (i.e., by observation)

If there is an actual contingent, there is a sufficient reason as to why it is how it is rather than otherwise. (i.e., by PSR)

Therefore, there is a sufficient reason as to why it is how it is rather than otherwise.

If there is a sufficient reason as to why it is how it is rather than otherwise, there is something necessary which is the ultimate ground of actual contingents. (i.e., the argument against the relevant infinite regress)

Therefore, there is something necessary which is the ultimate ground of actual contingents.

If there is something necessary which is the ultimate ground of actual contingents, God exists. (i.e., the argument for the properties of the first cause)

Therefore, God exists.

Then, in addition to challenging (2), i.e. the PSR, we could challenge (1), (4), or (6) as well. So the acceptance of the PSR does not per se suffice to warrant theism.

That said, challenges to the PSR are probably the most important and influential style of objection to this kind of theistic argument, so, in the practical context of the relevant arguments, it does significantly strengthen the case for theism to accept the PSR. I.e., since it undercuts the most important and influential style of objection to this kind of theistic argument.

[Anonymous No.22757934]

>>22757849
>Principle of Sufficient

If we assert that everything must have a reason, we face the problem of an infinite regress. That is, if every explanation requires a prior explanation, this chain of reasoning could potentially go on infinitely. This raises the question of whether there can be an ultimate explanation for everything.

[Anonymous No.22758034]

>>22757934
The PSR assumes that everything is contingent, meaning it depends on something else for its existence or occurrence. However, some philosophers argue that there could be necessary truths or entities that exist independently of any external reasons or causes. For example, mathematical truths are often considered to be necessary and not contingent on any particular explanation.

[Anonymous No.22758130]

>>22757849

[Anonymous No.22758138]

Yes, given an abstract definition of god

[Anonymous No.22759272]

>>22757849
However, it's important to recognize that the PSR doesn't dictate a specific explanation for every particular thing or event. It allows for a variety of interpretations and does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that a personal, intelligent, or transcendent being (God) is the only possible explanation.

[Anonymous No.22759346]

>>22757849
correct, same way men can be women now, it's all metaphysical, you can reason anything into anything, even your desert demon is "real"

[Anonymous No.22759352]

>>22759346
Astonishingly teenaged post

[Anonymous No.22759357]

>>22759346
you are retarded

[Anonymous No.22759363]

>>22759346
Astonishingly based post

[Anonymous No.22759365]

>>22757849
>>22757934
>>22758034
Yes it necessarily leads to an uncreated creator, a transcendent one as espoused in the 185 and 186 sermons in Nahj Al-Balagha, or one described by Plotinus.

[Anonymous No.22759452]

>>22759365
>Yes it necessarily leads to an uncreated creator
what do you mean? how the creator become uncreated

[Anonymous No.22759640]

>>22759346
you will never be a women

[Anonymous No.22759704]

>>22759640
then your god doesn't exist

[Anonymous No.22759712]

>>22759704
when you die you will know

[Anonymous No.22759905]

>>22759712
when you die you won't know anything

[Anonymous No.22760692]

>>22759905
you will know everything and you will see everything you did in your lifetime and angels might test you

[Anonymous No.22760700]

>>22757849
Principle of sufficient reason states that EVERYTHING must have a reason or a cause. WHAT CAUSED GOD? If you deny God had a cause you're denying the principle of sufficient reason. The PSR disproves the cosmological argument if you accept it.

[Anonymous No.22761343]

>>22760700
No. All contingent things have a cause.

Aquinas I QQ 2 Art 3, second way

[Anonymous No.22761349]

>>22757849
Yes. Aquinas, second way. That people accept causality, and not the First Cause is due to their sin and retardation

[Anonymous No.22761355]

>>22761343
>No. All contingent things have a cause.
Again a denial of the PSR. The principle of sufficient reason states that EVERYTHING must have a reason or cause. If you can pick and choose what it applies to it's worthless.

[Anonymous No.22761365]

>>22761355
You’re close. The reason for God’s existence is that His essence IS His existence. He has no cause of existence, but there is a reason for His existence.

[Anonymous No.22761372]

>>22761365
>The reason for God’s existence is that His essence IS His existence.
Circular reasoning
>He has no cause of existence
A denial of the PSR. Christcucks can't even avoid contradicting themselves in less than three sentences

[Anonymous No.22761378]

>>22760692
literal marvel tier garbage

[Anonymous No.22761394]

>>22761372
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sufficient-reason/#Intr

“For every fact F, there must be a sufficient reason F is the case”

A thing is caused when its existence is brought into effect by an agent outside of itself, like dogs or trees. God was never brought into existence, as He is existence as such.

However, the reason for God’s existence is that His essence is convertible with His existence. He who is.

I hope that God will grace you with insight to see Him

[Anonymous No.22761407]

>>22761394
>However, the reason for God’s existence is that His essence is convertible with His existence. He who is.
Circular reasoning. You can apply the same exact definition to the universe. The universe is that which necessarily exists. You've given up on the PSR and shifted to a blatant logical fallacy. Bible thumpers are pathetic retards.

[Anonymous No.22761430]

>>22761407
That would be the case, if the facts regarding the necessary attributes of God were other than they are.

https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1003.htm#article1

Also see the third way of Aquinas, where he builds off the work of Avicenna regarding the attributes of a necessary vs contingent being

[Anonymous No.22761443]

>>22761430
>if the facts regarding the necessary attributes of God were other than they are.
There are no "facts" regarding the necessary attributes of God. There are things people have made up to fit their arguments but the attributes of God are a subjective definition. I define God to be a ridiculous child's story that drooling morons believe in. Sorry the "facts" say you're a drooling moron. Say it with me again, just because you imagine something doesn't make it true.

[Anonymous No.22761459]

>>22761443
>There are no "facts" regarding the necessary attributes of God.

Wrong. Given that God must be pure actuality, certain attributes follow.

You can judge anything to be the case, but your judgment may not conform to reality, which means you’d be wrong, as truth is the conforming of the mind to reality.

[Anonymous No.22761465]

>>22761459
>Wrong. GIVEN that God must be pure actuality
GIVEN. GIVEN. It's not GIVEN that God must be anything. GIVEN BY WHO? You can't even distinguish your own opinion from fact.

[Anonymous No.22761473]

>>22761465
Quibbling, but given the reality of the principle of noncontradiction, there must be a being which is pure actuality

[Anonymous No.22761482]

>>22761473
>but given the reality of the principle of noncontradiction, there must be a being which is pure actuality
WHY? THAT'S THE COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT AGAIN YOU FUCKING RETARD. THE ONE YOU'RE TRYING TO JUSTIFY

[Anonymous No.22761486]

>>22757849
If one MUST accept the existence of God via reason, God MUST believe in you. It's nicer to keep the relationship voluntary. You don't want your parents to love you because they have to, but because they want to.

[Anonymous No.22761488]

>>22761482
Did you confuse the PNC with the cosmological argument? They’re different things

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/contradiction/

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/

[Anonymous No.22761497]

>>22761488
>Did you confuse the PNC with the cosmological argument?
Now you're just being dishonest
>there must be a being which is pure actuality
is the cosmological argument. Non-contradiction has nothing to do with God existing or not existing.

[Anonymous No.22761502]

>>22761497
But if you accept the PNC, you accept the impossibility of an infinite regress.

Why do you want to avoid necessary conclusions? We’re all sinners in need of God. His yoke is easy and the burden light. Why reject Him?

[Anonymous No.22761507]

>>22757849
OP I hope you’re paying attention to this thread because you’re getting good arguments for and against your question

[Anonymous No.22761539]

>>22761486
God believe in us as long as we have faith
you can't compare God omnibenevolent unconditional love with your parents

[Anonymous No.22761564]

>>22761502
>But if you accept the PNC, you accept the impossibility of an infinite regress.
No that doesn't follow. That's part of the cosmological argument but the cosmological argument is stupid. If an infinite regress can't exist that means God can't be eternal and have existed an infinite amount of time before creating the universe. Again basic logical consistency is easily shown to exceed the intellectual horizons of Christians

[Anonymous No.22761606]

>>22761443
you are retard

[Anonymous No.22761615]

>>22761378
atheist with autism issues

[Anonymous No.22761623]

>>22761564
>No that doesn't follow. That's part of the cosmological argument but the cosmological argument is stupid.

It does follow. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/infinite-regress/#RegrCont

>If an infinite regress can't exist that means God can't be eternal and have existed an infinite amount of time before creating the universe.

There was no time before the creation of the universe. Time is just the quantity of change.

>Again basic logical consistency is easily shown to exceed the intellectual horizons of Christians.

That’s also wrong just from Aquinas having existed

[Anonymous No.22761633]

>>22761623
>There was no time before the creation of the universe. Time is just the quantity of change.
Brilliant. So God didn't exist BEFORE(implies time existing) the universe and therefore could not have caused it. Or even better this would allow an infinite regress of causes outside of time.Yours is a goofy incoherent position.
>That’s also wrong just from Aquinas having existed
Angels on the head of a pin guy. Great example of not being a moron.

[Anonymous No.22761636]

>>22761606
Thanks Hegel bro. I disagree with quite a bit of Hegel, as he’s more an Anselmian entertaining Kant’s autism, but he’s very obviously a theistic fellow traveler.

[Anonymous No.22761658]

>>22761633
I’ll resort to chastisement, as I think I’ve pretty conclusively demonstrated the truth of the Thomist position against your broadly Epicurean or Democritean position.

You shouldn’t avoid the truth because you find it unpleasant at this moment. Reality itself is good, thus conformity of the mind to that reality is good. The existence of the Unmoved Mover, perfect actuality, is a necessary fact of reality. You have the necessary mental firepower to understand the proofs, so why do you continue to resist? Repent in dust and ashes and be welcomed like the prodigal son.

[Anonymous No.22761665]

>>22761658
So you've given up and admit arguments for God are deeply stupid and intellectually dishonest. All I could have asked for.

[Anonymous No.22761669]

Yes.

[Anonymous No.22761672]

>>22761665
Are you at least 18?

[Anonymous No.22761686]

>>22761672
Of course. Do you have a college degree with some type of formal training in logic? I'll answer for you, no you don't

[Anonymous No.22761701]

>>22761539
Then you would think that via a system, God would let us know clearly HOW to have faith, but the means to achieving faith are either different per region or muddied among individuals, leading to faithlessness. Example: if somebody tells me 'Have faith', which rarely occurs, I'd go 'Huh? How? And must it be via your method?' Not that I am not trying to be faithful, but trying only seems to make me be less faithful, just for the sole reason that I'm trying too hard.


Sources claiming that their medium of achieving faith lead to different methodologies being put forward and cooperating and competiting. Maybe it's like a mathematical question, where the method matters but only if the answer is correct.

I find it ironic that you post on a literature forum a picture with a filename of somebody who in literature is the espousal of comparing God's omnibenevolent love with his parents'.

[Anonymous No.22761718]

>>22757849
Thats a drawing of gabe newell

[Anonymous No.22761736]

>>22761564
>>22761623
>>22761633
>>22761658

NTA, but in my view the Principle of Sufficient reason is enough to necessitate the impossibility of an infinite regress, but it also exposes the incoherence of "contingency" or "cause".

Suppose an infinite chain existed. Would it demand a cause? In a modal realist worldview, a thing can be "necessary" if its existence follows from the possibility of a universe, so it could be a necessary being (I'm leaving out Bertrand Russell's idea of a gratuitous being, because it violates the PSR). If the infinite regress is necessary, how could every part be contingent? If you remove one part, the entire necessary entity changes. IT no longer retains all its properties if a contingent being is removed, and therefore it is itself contingent.

Since it is contingent, it demands a cause, leading to an infinite regress. Only this time, the regress is itself causeless and unnecessary, and cannot exist. My argument only applies to the infinite regress and NOT God.

But the PSR already seems ill founded to me.

1 - The idea of "cause" just seems to be another a-posteriori notion. There's no reason to give it metaphysical significance. There's no reason Bertrand Russell can't be correct about an infinite chain being both uncaused and not necessary.

2 - By the above argument, it cannot function without postulating a necessary being, "caused" by noncontingent logical laws. It also requires that this being have something adjacent to "free will" mediating its creation, because everything caused by a necessary being in the strict PSR sense must also be necessary. Why should we accept the existence of such a being?

Also I can tell you watch anticitizenx lol

[Anonymous No.22761899]

>>22761718
No

[Anonymous No.22761997]

[Anonymous No.22762025]

>>22761701
>Then you would think that via a system, God would let us know clearly HOW to have faith

you can read the bible and you have unlimited sources in the internet about how to have more faith, you have to work anon
why do you want it to be so easy

[Anonymous No.22762161]

The Argument from Contingency: Plato, The Laws; Aristotle, Metaphysics (Book Lambda), al-Farabi, ibn Rushd, ibn Sina (Avicenna), Aquinas, Copleston, Adler, Geisler, Koons.

The Argument From Sufficent Reson (PSR): Leibniz, S. Clarke, R. Taylor.

The Kalam argument: al-Ghazzali, Maimonides, William Lane Craig

[Anonymous No.22762305]

>>22759365
Alhamdulilah

[Anonymous No.22762415]

>>22759365
Allah Akbar

[Anonymous No.22762727]

>>22761736
In an infinite chain every link has a cause, it just doesn't have *the same* cause. So it doesn't actually violate anything.

[Anonymous No.22762745]

>>22757849
"God" is a projection of the super ego onto the external universe, so no.

[Anonymous No.22763226]

>>22757849

[Anonymous No.22763236]

>>22762745
wrong, it's a different perspective to tell it but it's not the ultimate truth

[Anonymous No.22763364]

[Anonymous No.22763401]

>>22757849

[Anonymous No.22763410]

>>22761372
>Christcucks can't even avoid contradicting themselves in less than three sentences

[Anonymous No.22763670]

[Anonymous No.22763770]

>>22761686
do you need college degree to have critical thinking?

[Anonymous No.22763792]

>>22763770
Having a college degree is a better indicator of being capable of critical thinking than being over 18. Churches are full of old people that haven't had a critical thought in their lives.

[Anonymous No.22763797]

>>22762727
But this doesn’t involve my argument. The nature of the being changed by removing a contingent being. In my view, if a being is to be necessary, all aspects of it must be necessary. But all parts of the infinite regress are contingent. What then remains of its necessity?

[Anonymous No.22763999]

>>22763792
>Having a college degree is a better indicator of being capable of critical thinking

this prove nothing, having a college degree is overrated, you can be a retarded with a college degree and this one over 18 years old beat your ass because he have better genetics and can comprehend more

you clearly haven't had a critical thought in your life that's why you reflect on people

[Anonymous No.22764045]

>>22763999
>you can be a retarded with a college degree and this one over 18 years old beat your ass
And you can be over 18 and be a total fucking retard. A college degree is a better indicator of intelligence than being over 18. Except in very few cases you have to be over 18 to even have a college degree.

[Anonymous No.22764099]

>>22757849

[Anonymous No.22764113]

>>22757849
Praise the LORD of HOSTS YHWH

[Anonymous No.22764139]

>>22760700
>>22761355
What caused the PSR? If you appeal to PSR without referring to its cause you're denying the PSR.

[Anonymous No.22764149]

>>22764139
>If you appeal to PSR without referring to its cause you're denying the PSR.
Boom. PSR is self-contradictory so any apologetic Jesus shit based on it is already debunked.

[Anonymous No.22764272]

>>22764149
It's more like you didn't understand what PSR means because it is not literally used in order to posit an illogical infinite chain of causes, even against itself. It is more of a logical axiom that is used to posit logically a First Principle of all causes and reasons; in other terms, there is a reason for a First Principle not to be dependent on another. But personally I find a rationalist apologetic like that wont of cheesy souled beings.

[Anonymous No.22764285]

>>22764272
>It is more of a logical axiom that is used to posit logically a First Principle of all causes and reasons
So it's a logical axiom that is used to posit it's OWN FUCKING COUNTEREXAMPLE? Again a First Principle, Cause, Being, or whatever without that is not caused by anything is a direct contradiction of the PSR.

[Anonymous No.22764328]

>>22764285
It's not a counterexample, the PSR is itself an axiom.

[Anonymous No.22764337]

>>22764328
>It's not a counterexample
You fucking retard I even put the counterexample in the next fucking sentence.A FIRST PRINCIPLE WITHOUT A CAUSE DIRECTLY CONTRADICTS THE PSR SAYING !!!EVERYTHING!!! HAS A CAUSE

[Anonymous No.22764372]

>>22764337
That is not a counterexample because there is a reason why the first principle must be the first principle you braindead retard. Nobody in history has understood the PSR as something that says: there must be infinite regress to everything.

[Anonymous No.22764378]

>>22764372
>That is not a counterexample
>Every X must have a cause
>Here is an X without a cause but it doesn't contradict what I JUST FUCKING SAID
GTFO with this stupid braindead christcuck shit.

[Anonymous No.22764389]

>>22757849
Plenty of atheists bite this bullet, the bullet they don't bite is the nature of this "God", and I've yet to see anything compelling that indicates any one particular "God" we speak of corresponds to the unmoved-mover.

[Anonymous No.22764431]

>>22764389
that's what i intended

[Anonymous No.22764456]

>>22764378

[Anonymous No.22764469]

>>22764378
You’re irredeemably retarded, I give up.

[Anonymous No.22764479]

>>22764469
So explain to me how what I just wrote isn't a contradiction

Everything has property A
Here is something without property A

Is this a contradiction? Yes or no. It's an easy, easy question that anyone who has even a basic grasp of logic can answer.

[Anonymous No.22764563]

>>22757849

[Anonymous No.22764656]

>>22764479
The PSR does not posit that everything has the property of contingency. This is what you are assuming. But that everything must need a reason why it is. The uncaused cause is not only the reason for the following chain but the reason for its own necessity, like Reason’s own necessity for explaining (grounding) things.

[Anonymous No.22764697]

>>22764656
>The uncaused cause is not only the reason for the following chain but the reason for its own necessity
Already touched on here >>22761372. You've given up on saying the first cause is uncaused(even though you're still calling it uncaused) since being uncaused directly contradicts the PSR. Instead you've switched to the blatant logical fallacy of circular reasoning. SOMETHING CAN'T BE IT"S OWN REASON FOR EXISTING.

[Anonymous No.22764769]

>>22764697
I’m not trying to prove the cogency of the PSR, because I don’t think it special in any way besides being the form of cognition of experience, I’m just trying to show you that that Reason itself posits the stop to a regression in order to ground the very chain of grounded things just like Reason is SUFFICIENT to explain things, it doesn’t need the reason of reason. You are demanding the reason of A = A.

[Anonymous No.22764781]

>>22764769
So you've given up claiming
1. God is uncaused since that violates the PSR
2. God is his own reason for existence since that is just a circular argument.
The whole point of the thread was arguments for God not about the cogency of the PSR. And all of the arguments for God presented here have been moron grade bs that is easily shown to deeply confused and illogical.

[Anonymous No.22764848]

>>22764781
The point of the thread was an argument for God grounded on the PSR, so obviously on its cogency.
I was trying to show you how they take the argument to be in order to prove God/Uncaused Cause in the manner that Reason is sufficient not only other things but itself. The infinite regress of things, the ubiquitous contingency of things is an illogical rebuttal in that it goes even beyond Eleatic monism denying not only phenomena but the noumenon too (since it would need a cause etc.), so that what is taken to be real is only negation. Since there are things that exist, there must be a thing that explains them all, otherwise nothing would be explainable (not even exist in infinite cause regress) and the Principle and Reason useless. That’s all

[Anonymous No.22764871]

>>22764848
>Since there are things that exist, there must be a thing that explains them all
Sure and that thing is the universe. The universe needs no explanation or God. The whole point of the PSR song and dance is to try and say the universe needs a reason but God doesn't. But as we've both agreed exempting God like that is stupid and contradictory. So you're not left with an argument for God at all.

[Anonymous No.22764880]

>>22764848
An axiomatic foundation of the universe makes just as much sense as an axiomatic foundation of God

[Anonymous No.22764915]

>>22764149
>>22764139
>>22764272
>>22764285
>>22764328
>>22764337>>22764378
>>22764479
>>22764697
>>22764781


calm your tits. PSR regards causes for the existence of beings, not the truth of all statements. God is necessary, as he is contingent on the possibility of the world he resides in (existing in all possible worlds). People describing beings as contingent are usually referring to beings contingent on things within the world, that is, things which are themselves contingent (if a thing were contingent on the necessary being it would obviously be necessary).

[Anonymous No.22764938]

>>22764915
>PSR regards causes for the existence of beings
Aren't we fucking talking about God's existence? By the PSR there must be a cause for God's existence. If God is uncaused that is a direct contradiction of the PSR

[Anonymous No.22764948]

>>22764938
He is not “uncaused” properly speaking. He is caused by the fact that the world is possible, and god morally exists in all possible worlds (necessity). This terminates the causal chain

[Anonymous No.22764949]

>>22764871
>>22764880
Of course the beef is with God.
But the universe would need an explanation because it is composed, it has parts and contingency.

[Anonymous No.22764964]

>>22764948
>He is not “uncaused” properly speaking
So what caused him?
>He is caused by the fact that the world is possible, and god morally exists in all possible worlds (necessity). This terminates the causal chain
Ah stupid fucking circular reasoning again. God is his own fucking cause lol. Christcucks are so fucking stupid and they don't even know it. Not to mention you've jumped ship from the cosmological argument since I BTFO of that and have switched to an ontological one about God's necessity. You can't just define shit into existence. If I say unicorns are defined as necessary that doesn't make them real

[Anonymous No.22764974]

>>22764949
>But the universe would need an explanation because it is composed, it has parts and contingency.
Isn't the Trinity a big fucking deal in Christianity? Three fucking parts. And I can just call the universe necessary just like you're calling God necessary. You have no reason to call God necessary besides just saying it by fiat. And I don't accept your definition. If I say unicorns are defined as necessary that doesn't make them real

[Anonymous No.22764987]

>>22764974
>appealing to Trinity out of nowhere
Lol
>I can call the universe necessary just like you’re calling god
No you can’t and I literally explained why. Why are you so worked up with that? You sound mentally unstable.

[Anonymous No.22764996]

>>22764964
>God is his own fucking cause lol.

Learn to read before going on /lit/. God is not his own cause. He is caused by the possibility of the world, on which his existence is contingent.

>Not to mention you've jumped ship from the cosmological argument

I’m not the person you think I am. The only other posts I have made is, >>22764948, >>22764915,>>22761736

Also this is logically equivalent to the cosmological argument, you’re just kinda stupid

[Anonymous No.22764998]

>>22764987
>No you can’t and I literally explained why.
Why not? Where did you explain it? I know it's not by appeal to the PSR since again THE SAME EXACT ARGUMENT CAN BE MADE AGAINST GOD USING THE PSR.

[Anonymous No.22765015]

>>22764998
>Where did you explain
Here >>22764949
>the same argument can be made against God using the PSR
It can’t and I explained this here >>22764848

[Anonymous No.22765033]

>>22765015
>Here >>22764949
That's not a fucking explanation it's just you saying the universe is contingent and expecting me to believe it. Why is the universe contingent and God isn't? You claimed you had an explanation so where is it?
>It can’t and I explained this here >>22764848
Again no explanation given. Why can the casual chain stop with God but not with the universe? WHY?

[Anonymous No.22765158]

>>22765033
>it's just you saying the universe is contingent
I explained that it is so because it is composed, has parts that are contingent.
>Why is the universe contingent and God isn't?
I already said why, God is the necessary cause.

>Why can the causal chain stop with god but not universe?
Because God is not composed like the universe is, he has no parts as the universe has, and is necessary unlike the universe.

[Anonymous No.22765245]

>>22757849
It doesn't necessitate a conscious creator and there isn't even any reason to accept it. Anyways this is an off topic thread.

[Anonymous No.22765270]

>>22759352
Recognizing that reddit scientism is retarded doesn't make anyone think that you tradcath/orthodox larpers are also not underage.

[Anonymous No.22765318]

>>22761672
Are you? If you are then this is deeply embarrassing.

[Anonymous No.22765339]

[Anonymous No.22766682]

>>22762415
Cute

>>22762305
Based

>>22759365
Correct

[Anonymous No.22766741]

>>22763797
That's just presupposing the existence of relations. By application of Bradley's Regress, the distinction between the grounded and the ground collapses. What's left is a view on Being or substance in which it is undifferentiated and necessary in every respect.

[Anonymous No.22767003]

[Anonymous No.22767049]

>>22765270
True

[Anonymous No.22767066]

>>22765158
Why is Allah by definition necessary?

[Anonymous No.22767070]

>>22767066
What do you mean?

[Anonymous No.22767079]

>>22767070
You said Allah is the necessary cause.
You said Allah is not composed.

How do you know this?

[Anonymous No.22767094]

>>22767079
That is what he is explaining anon...

Also read sermon 185 186 of Nahj Al-Balagha

[Anonymous No.22767239]

>>22767079

[Anonymous No.22767303]

>>22757849

[Anonymous No.22767350]

>>22757849
which universe? do you know anything?

[Anonymous No.22767389]

>>22763797
>But this doesn’t involve my argument. The nature of the being changed by removing a contingent being. In my view, if a being is to be necessary, all aspects of it must be necessary. But all parts of the infinite regress are contingent. What then remains of its necessity?
I agree that the chain is not necessary. The view I wanted to put forward is that the explanation of the chain is reducible to the individual explanations of the links. If that's true, an infinite chain is not without explanation despite lacking a *unitary* explanation. So the PSR is satisfied.

[Anonymous No.22767431]

>>22757849
>>22757849
>If one accepts the Principle of Sufficient Reason as true, does that mean they naturally must accept the existence of God vis a vis cosmological arguments?

Yes Principle of Sufficient Reason then everything is for a reason then why are we here there is a reason and the most rational reason that something of great importance created us and it's probably God because who else would do it it's not some kind of lovecraft fantasy this is reality

[Anonymous No.22767450]

>>22767431
>Yes Principle of Sufficient Reason then everything is for a reason then why are we here there is a reason
>it's probably God
What's the reason for God's existence?

[Anonymous No.22767492]

>>22757934
>Principle of Sufficient
Wrong interpterion for PSR, Principle of Sufficient Reason is a powerful and controversial philosophical principle stipulating that everything must have a reason, cause, or ground
doesn't necessarily mean that there is no independent agents

[Anonymous No.22767537]

>>22767492
>doesn't necessarily mean that there is no independent agents
So what are reasons for those independent agents? Since by the PSR they must have them

[Anonymous No.22767570]

>>22757849
The existence of god is not sufficiently reasonable

[Anonymous No.22767571]

>>22757934
>independent agents
God

[Anonymous No.22767573]

>>22767571
So by the PSR what is the reason for God?

[Anonymous No.22767662]

>>22761633
>Angels on the head of a pin guy.
Source?

[Anonymous No.22767668]

>>22767662
https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1052.htm
Summa Theologica Question 52 Article 3
Whether several angels can be at the same time in the same place?
Shit is goofy as hell.

[Anonymous No.22767680]

>>22764938
>>22764948
>>22764964
NTA but Aquinas argues that things either are caused by virtue of their essence or they are caused by something beyond them. Most things require a cause because there’s nothing about their essence that says they have to exist in such and such fashion. e.g. we don’t have deer spontaneously generating themselves into existence because of the way they’re built. instead, they’re caused by other deer giving birth in the short-term, evolutionary pressures in the long-term. this is what Aquinas calls the existence-essence distinction (esse-essentia in Latin). God exists because He is pure act, meaning He is perfect, unchanging, complete, finished, etc. That means that nobody could have generated Him. So He had to be uncaused/self-caused, and there is no existence-essence distinction for Him. In fact, if it were any different, then God would not be God, and we would have to look for something greater than the imposter, which would then be the God we were looking for all along. It has to be like that by definition.

Now, why God is pure act and has to have the properties I’ve described is a separate argument entirely. But it goes to show that God does not violate the PSR as the proper accounting of causes remains satisfied as long we are satisfied with this description of God.

[Anonymous No.22767686]

>>22767680
>So He had to be uncaused/self-caused
Already addressed here >>22764781
If God is uncaused that violates the PSR that OP took as an assumption
If God is self-caused that's circular logic
Both are stupid and incoherent

[Anonymous No.22767687]

>>22767668
That’s actually a really interesting exposition on immaterial substance. Nothing trivial like “dancing on the head of a pin” or anything like.

[Anonymous No.22767693]

>>22767686
I don’t see how God being self-caused is circular logic if it follows from His essence.

[Anonymous No.22767697]

>>22767687
>Nothing trivial like “dancing on the head of a pin” or anything like.
It is entirely trivial and it is a direct exposition of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Goofy as shit and shows Aquinas as the moron he is.

[Anonymous No.22767700]

>>22767693
Unicorns necessarily exist as part of their essence. Therefore unicorns exist. Replace unicorns with whatever you want. This is why circular logic isn't allowed you can prove anything you want this way.

[Anonymous No.22767763]

>>22767697
It’s just a discussion of how immaterial substances like angels would behave. It’s actually quite interesting, especially if you have materialist baggage you want to unravel. There’s no mention of dancing or anything of the sort in the text, so I doubt you read it. Aquinas comments on an objection regarding demonic possession, and I’d imagine you’d be focusing on that if you were aware of it.
>>22767700
What is so special about a unicorn’s essence that it must spontaneously and eternally will itself into existence? You can’t just claim these things. Are you familiar with the arguments describing God’s essence? Because that’s what you need to be asking instead. Nobody is simply declaring that a random, corporeal being, even a fictitious one like a unicorn, is self-caused because it wouldn’t make sense.

[Anonymous No.22767780]

>>22767763
>There’s no mention of dancing or anything of the sort in the text, so I doubt you read it
There is mention of angels colocating at a point hence "angels dancing on the head of a pin". It's goofy as fuck.>>22767763
>What is so special about a unicorn’s essence that it must spontaneously and eternally will itself into existence? YOU CAN'T JUST CLAIM THESE THINGS
Exactly. You claimed that God was necessary or pure actuality by definition. YOU CAN'T JUST CLAIM THESE THINGS. Your definition of God is exactly the same as my definition of unicorns.

[Anonymous No.22767798]

>>22767780
>hence "angels dancing on the head of a pin"
This is just your own goofy spin. And Aquinas debunks things like that as being impossible because the presence of one Angel would preclude the presence of angel. So what exactly is your problem?

I take it that you’re not a big fan of philosophy and for depth of these problems go way over your head.

>You claimed that God was necessary or pure actuality by definition.
Again, it’s a wholly separate argument. But it’s not circular to carry forth the consequences of that argument into the PSR. Things are either self-caused or caused by something else. That’s all it says. You’d have to make an argument about why God’s essence can’t be perfect, fully actualized, etc. (without making a category error by trying to call red “blue” if that makes any sense) to debunk it. But that’s a topic for another thread. So make that thread.

Case closed.

[Anonymous No.22767815]

>>22767798
>So what exactly is your problem?
The problem is it's a goofy trivial argument. Angels dancing on the head of a pin.
>Again, it’s a wholly separate argument.
So if questions of definition are a separate argument why did you object to my unicorn definition?
>Things are either self-caused
Circular argument
>Things are either self-caused or caused by something else
Also at least I've got you to admit it's stupid to assume the PSR then call something uncaused like you did above.
>You’d have to make an argument about why God’s essence can’t be perfect, fully actualized, etc
No you'd have to make an argument why God has those properties without just defining him to have them. Don't make me break out my unicorn definition.
>Case closed.
Agreed. As I've shown several times the PSR directly contradicts cosmological arguments. Per OP's question the answer is you can't believe in the PSR and the cosmological argument and be logically consistent.

[Anonymous No.22767817]

>>22767780
you are retard

[Anonymous No.22767823]

>>22767815
>why God has those properties without just defining him to have them

because he said so

[Anonymous No.22767859]

>>22767815
>The problem is it's a goofy trivial argument.
Not at all. If you posit that immaterial substances exist, then you have to explain how they work. That’s pretty normal. I don’t understand why that escapes your comprehension.
>why did you object to my unicorn definition
Because it sounded like you were trying to arbitrarily describe “red” as “having the property of blue” instead of trying to thoroughly investigate what is “red” and what is “blue.”
>Circular argument
Self-causation isn’t a circular argument if it follows from the properties of being. Saying that you woke up this morning and chose to skip breakfast because you have free will (self-caused action) isn’t a circular argument. You have free will as a virtue of being a human being.
>Also at least I've got you to admit it's stupid to assume the PSR then call something uncaused like you did above.
I make no distinction between self-caused and uncaused. Uncaused means nothing else caused it, which I reserve for the first mover.
>Don't make me break out my unicorn definition.
If all you’re going to do is describe something that looks like God (minus any contradiction of having material, unicorn-like properties, which would contradict God’s immaterial being), then all I would say is that you tried a sleight of hand where you named “blue” when you really should have said “red.” It doesn’t matter what you call it. This is just you trying to spin things in a negative light while parking yourself deeper into a corner.
>>22767823
The best way of arguing this point is saying that it’s impossible for God (chiefly, the bare bones “philosopher’s god” to exist. So start tackling what it means for something to be pure act and say why the universe doesn’t need such a being and that such a being can’t exist for such and such reasons.

[Anonymous No.22767867]

The same retard from yesterday still raving against what was already explained to him by different anons. Absolutely deranged. This is an argument for me to return to being a christian.

[Anonymous No.22767878]

>>22767859
>I don’t understand why that escapes your comprehension.
What escapes your comprehension about it being a goofy trivial argument about angels dancing on the head of a pin?
>Self-causation isn’t a circular argument
Brilliant. So what caused the universe? It caused itself. You can't claim that's a circular argument now.
>free will (self-caused action)
Even more brilliant. I have free will which means I'm self-caused so God can't have created me
>Uncaused means nothing else caused it, which I reserve for the first mover
Which again directly contradicts the PSR that says everything has a cause
>It doesn’t matter what you call it
Rofl so now you're reduced to claiming my made up unicorn is your God. Pathetic.

[Anonymous No.22767882]

>>22767878
You were already refuted yestarday in the posts above. So much so that you just stopped answering.

[Anonymous No.22767886]

>>22767882
Huh? I got the anons yesterday to finally admit the PSR contradicts an uncaused God.

[Anonymous No.22767900]

>>22767882
I wasn’t posting yesterday lol. You’re confusing me with multiple anons.

Anyway, I’ll accept your admission of philosophical illiteracy and I will be looking forward to your next thread of debating God’s essence.

[Anonymous No.22767910]

>>22767900
Someone's confused and it's not him. He was responding to my post and you're not me.

[Anonymous No.22767923]

>>22767886
Read the interaction:

>>22764848
>>22764915
>>22764949
>>22764987
>>22764996
>>22765015
>>22765158

[Anonymous No.22767931]

>>22767878
>angels dancing on the head of a pin
The fact that dancing or pins aren’t mentioned, that explaining how things work is how things go, and that Aquinas rebutted that multiple angels can inhabit the same place? Like, you’re fractally dumb here. I don’t know why you insist on making a fool out of yourself.
>Brilliant. So what caused the universe? It caused itself. You can't claim that's a circular argument now.
Well, now you have to tell me what is essence of the universe is and why it is self-causing, even though it is filled with things that only cause each other. It can be done. You just have to make the argument instead of lazily claiming this or that.
>Even more brilliant. I have free will which means I'm self-caused so God can't have created me
Not so fast. Your being is only partially self-caused. I assume that you have a mother and a father (maybe he’s not really in the picture but that’s besides the point). Your creation wasn’t self-caused.
>Which again directly contradicts the PSR that says everything has a cause
The operative word was “else.” Uncaused and self-caused imply each other.
>Rofl so now you're reduced to claiming my made up unicorn is your God. Pathetic.
If you took blue and called it red, it’s still blue. You’re just being retarded with names. I’ve explained this like five times and you still don’t get it.

[Anonymous No.22767938]

>>22767923
What is there to read?
Every X has a cause
This X doesn't have a cause
Is this a contradiction or not?

[Anonymous No.22767955]

>>22767931
>You just have to make the argument instead of lazily claiming this or that.
EXACTLY. Where is the argument that God is necessary or pure actuality? You can't just define him like that. Just like you objecting to my definition of the universe as self-caused.
>Not so fast. Your being is only partially self-caused.
Epically brilliant. Now you've introduced the notion of partial self-causation. So how do we know God isn't partially self-caused? Do you see how this works. You make up some goofy shit to worm your way out of an argument and then I turn around and immediately apply it to God.
>Uncaused and self-caused imply each other.
Jeez you're just wildly flailing at this point. Self-caused and uncaused are two distinct things. See >>22764880 for some philosophical education.
>If you took blue and called it red, it’s still blue. You’re just being retarded with names
So let me get this straight you actually believe the unicorn I just made up exists? I've never had someone just fling themselves onto the bonfire of idiocy like this.

[Anonymous No.22767971]

>>22767938
This was explained in those posts.

[Anonymous No.22767977]

>>22767971
>This was explained in those posts.
I know I explained it into the ground. Those anons finally begrudgingly stopped calling God uncaused and using the PSR at the same time.

[Anonymous No.22767999]

>>22767977
Read the interaction. After they explained why God is uncaused and how the PSR leads to uncaused cause, you asked something about Allah which others anons answered. I know nothing about Allah though.

[Anonymous No.22768009]

>>22767999
I said nothing about Allah but if they said God was uncaused and used the PSR at the same time they are again committing a comically basic logical error
Every X has a cause
This X doesn't have a cause
Is this a contradiction or not?

[Anonymous No.22768039]

>>22768009
It is not a logical error, nor a contradiction. This was explained here >>22764848, here >>22764915, here >>22765158 etc.
I thought you were this anon here >>22767066. Also because you asked about the Trinity in the middle of the discussion.

[Anonymous No.22768045]

>>22768039
>It is not a logical error, nor a contradiction
And this is the end of this conversation. If you can't admit
Every X has a cause
This X doesn't have a cause
is a contradiction you're too stupid to be reasoned with.

[Anonymous No.22768059]

>>22768045
But it was explained the reason for it.

[Anonymous No.22768231]

>>22768009
>This X doesn't have a cause
will never reveal the cause of it's existence, but it's literally exists

[Anonymous No.22768333]

>>22757849

[Anonymous No.22768335]

>>22757934
Not a problem in panentheism. God is fully transcendent, a "true infinite," in Hegel's sense, "in everything but contained in nothing," per Augustine.

[Anonymous No.22768337]

>>22768009
Allah is uncaused. If you want to argue his essence then make another thread. But it’s logical to carry over the consequences of Allah’s essence over into PSR.

[Anonymous No.22768399]

>>22767859
>The best way of arguing this point is saying that it’s impossible for God (chiefly, the bare bones “philosopher’s god” to exist.

very possible, God created us in his image and wisdom

the probability of the existence of personal God is extremely High

you just don't want your illusions to be destroyed, you are afraid of something

what are you afraid of?

[Anonymous No.22768426]

>>22768337
>But it’s logical to carry over the consequences of Allah’s essence over into PSR.
And if you do and Allah is uncaused that directly contradicts the PSR. WTF is wrong with you guys that you can't understand this. If you claim everything has property X and then immediately give a counterexample of something without property X that contradicts your initial claim.

[Anonymous No.22768439]

>>22768426
You are stupid lol

[Anonymous No.22768460]

>>22768439
Every X has a cause
This X doesn't have a cause
Is this a contradiction or not?

[Anonymous No.22768547]

>>22757849

[Anonymous No.22768574]

>>22768460
It isn't and it was explained why above.

[Anonymous No.22768616]

>>22757849
Schopenhauer wrote an entire book disagreeing with this.

[Anonymous No.22768628]

>>22768574
>It isn't and it was explained why above.
Of course it is a contradiction. If you can't even see that you're too stupid to reason with.

[Anonymous No.22768637]

>>22768628
It was explained above. Read the posts above.

[Anonymous No.22768670]

>>22768637
There is nothing to fucking explain. You're claiming
Every X has a cause
This X doesn't have a cause
is not a contradiction. It absolutely is by basic rules of logic. You've failed miserably. If every X has a property then that means YOU CAN'T FIND AN X WITHOUT THAT PROPERTY

[Anonymous No.22768714]

>>22768670
But it was told already dozens of time how that is not the case because it is not “every x has a therefore another x [which is not an x] has a”

[Anonymous No.22768725]

>>22768714
>But it was told already dozens of time how that is not the case because it is not “every x has a therefore another x [which is not an x] has a”
THEN JUST FUCKING SAY THAT. So either you don't agree with the PSR or you don't believe God is uncaused. Either way OP's post about the PSR and the cosmological argument doesn't apply to you since you don't believe in one or the other.

[Anonymous No.22768744]

>>22768725
Just fucking say what you idiot? There must be a first cause just like there must be a principle, otherwise the endless series of things would only assert a universal negation of everything since there would only be an infinite chain of dependence nothing at all being actual

[Anonymous No.22768752]

>>22768744
>There must be a first cause just like there must be a principle
So now your back to claiming an uncaused cause and the PSR at the same time. Which you just said here >>22768714 you weren't doing. You're a drooling fucking retard. I bet you're in diapers slobbering this shit out over a keyboard

[Anonymous No.22768799]

>>22768752
Yeah, the principle/uncaused cause/first mover is not a contingent being you absolute braindead fuckwit, meaning it is not a x

[Anonymous No.22768807]

>>22768799
So now you've shifted away from claiming everything has a cause to everything CONTINGENT has a cause. Again just fucking say that instead of claiming
Every X has a cause
This X doesn't have a cause
is not a contradiction.
But this is trivial to counter by just calling the universe not contingent so it doesn't need a cause.

[Anonymous No.22768828]

>>22768807
The universe is contingent as it was explained here why >>22764949

[Anonymous No.22768838]

>>22768828
Your "explanation" is just claiming the universe is contingent and expecting me to believe it. So now I claim the universe is necessary and not contingent and expect you to believe me. You've lost the grasp the PSR has on the universe by changing it from everything to everything contingent. Your argument has fallen apart in your attempt to avoid a contradiction that you repeatedly denied existed.

[Anonymous No.22768860]

>>22768838
You are so stupid lol
Like a child

[Anonymous No.22768870]

>>22768860
Rofl you're calling me stupid? After repeatedly denying an obvious contradiction was a contradiction. And running away with your tail between your legs by changing what you were claiming

[Anonymous No.22768877]

>>22768838
I’m not expecting anything from a retard like you, I’m just exposing the things you ask logically. The universe is not necessary because it is composed of parts and parts that are contingent. The universe is not what it is separated from the things that constitute it.

[Anonymous No.22768900]

>>22768877
>The universe is not necessary because it is composed of parts and parts that are contingent
How do you know the parts are contingent? Again you're not understanding how necessity and contingency are used. You don't just get to arbitrarily pick and choose what you want to be necessary or contingent. We have no way of knowing objectively whether something is necessary or contingent other than assuming it to be one way or the other or deriving it to be so from prior reasoning. Assuming the universe is necessary is exactly the same as assuming God is necessary.

[Anonymous No.22768915]

>>22768870
I'm not the same anon who was explaining it to you. I just read your replies and thought you were stupid, and said it to you twice lol

[Anonymous No.22768920]

>>22768900
It is not the same. God is not physical, he has no parts, not composed, not dependent on contingent things that constitute itself (retard, the moon, stars, you, nothing of that is necessary because dependent on a myriad of causes), but the universe is.

[Anonymous No.22768932]

>>22768920
Again this is just you claiming God isn't contingent but the universe is. I claim the universe isn't contingent and God doesn't exist. You have no argument besides just raging and insisting I believe what you tell me. Tell me why God is not contingent without just assuming or defining God not be contingent. You can't fucking do it. All of the ontological proof start by defining God to be necessary which is clearly goofy and would let you prove anything

[Anonymous No.22768955]

>>22768932
I’m not just claiming it, I’m explaining (repeatedly) why it is that the universe is contingent and god (uncaused, necessary etc) isn’t.

[Anonymous No.22768970]

>>22768955
>I’m not just claiming it, I’m explaining (repeatedly)
No you're not. Why is God not contingent? You've talked about parts and composition but said nothing about contingency. And as pointed out above the whole universe could be necessary all of it's parts included. It's called modal collapse and has no actual disproof besides people not liking it. Or the singularity at the beginning of the universe could have been the necessary thing that led to the universe of contingent things. You have yet to give any reason why these things can't be necessary and you have yet to give any reason why God has to be necessary.

[Anonymous No.22769008]

>>22767697
haha you really OWNED that 800 year old theologian!

[Anonymous No.22769013]

>>22767938
>This X doesn't have a cause

This X is caused by the possibility of the universe. By God's definition, he exists in all possible universes. You can dispute the rationality of this assertion, but your struggle to even understand it makes me doubtful that you have anything relevant to say on the matter

[Anonymous No.22769016]

>>22769008
I'm not the one who came up with angels on the head of a pin insult. The whole Enlightenment took a dump on Aquinas and the Scholastics

If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning, concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion. -Hume

[Anonymous No.22769026]

>>22769013
>This X is caused by the possibility of the universe.
So God isn't uncaused in your formulation. That isn't the cosmological argument and the PSR doesn't contradict it.
>By God's definition, he exists in all possible universes
By my definition of God he doesn't exist. I don't accept proof by definition and I doubt you will accept it either in the case of my definition.

[Anonymous No.22769046]

>>22769026
>I don't accept proof by definition and I doubt you will accept it either in the case of my definition.

I don't accept the proof either, but it's not a proof by definition. Assuming that
1 - an infinite regress is impossible
2 - in order for a universe to be "possible", it must abide by the PSR

From these two it is obvious that there must be a "God", which exists in all possible universes, as he follows from the first two which apply in all possible universes. These are the end of the causal chain.

>That isn't the cosmological argument

It's essentially the same argument in different christian puffery. Replace "caused" with "contingent", that is, "Nonexistent in a possible universe".

[Anonymous No.22769068]

>>22768970
I literally talk about contingency above. The universe is contingent on its parts in order to be the universe it is, and the parts are contingent on themselves, none of them are necessary because they are all bound by a chain of cause effect organization.