[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 607 KB, 700x6826, aquinas.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6581369 No.6581369 [Reply] [Original]

So what is wrong with this?

>> No.6581376

>>6581369
what do you think is wrong with it?

>> No.6581380

>>6581369
it assumes a top down structure in natural needlessly

>> No.6581387

in b4 special pleading
you know it's going to happen, /lit/

>> No.6581410

>>6581369
Nothing, apart from the additional assumption of will, consciousness and personhood that most religious people will ascribe to said first cause. And the grounding of all true proposition need not have any knowledge itself in any meaningful sense.

>> No.6581420

>>6581380
What? This makes no sense to me.

>> No.6581430

>>6581369
i don't know what most people would say

but personally i believe very strongly there can and is an infinite chain stretching both ways

i also believe the universe is infinitely large and infinitely detailed

in this way, there is literally no room for god

>> No.6581433
File: 2.96 MB, 300x360, 1417234175415.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6581433

>power plant
>refrigerator
>cold air
>ice
>Take any member out of the chain, right now, and the water won't freeze.

Who built the nuclear power plants and built the giant refrigerators to make glaciers 2400 million years ago? God must've done it. It's not like ice can occur naturally.

Are people seriously this retarded?

>> No.6581449

>>6581430
This argument for God does not argue against an eternal universe but an eternal chain of causality. The argument deals with God as he works right now.

>>6581433
>missing the point entirely

>> No.6581456

>>6581449
>missing the point entirely
I didn't miss the point. I removed something from the chain and the ice still froze. Ice can exist independently of human assistance.

>> No.6581464

>>6581456
3/10

>> No.6581474

>>6581464
>Take any member out of the chain, right now, and the water won't freeze.
Checkmate.

>> No.6581477

>>6581449
>The argument deals with God as he works right now.
you mean some finite segment of time?

but that's arbitrary, right?

>> No.6581478

>>6581433
Yes! Read your own comment.

>> No.6581481

Logical positivism.

>> No.6581495

>>6581449
You're pettifogging the issue, pedant

>> No.6581499

The guy looked like a fucking douche. I don't trust douchy-looking people on instinct, and you shouldn't either.

>> No.6581502

>>6581449
You took the bait

>> No.6581504

>>6581369
It breaks down where it assumes an infinite chain MUST be inert.

Our limited experience teaches us that, sure. But our experience is just that: limited.

>> No.6581517

>>6581449
> eternal chain for causality
Why is this necessarily impossible?

OP is wrong because saying there is a first cause in no way implies a plan or consciousness or any of the other properties that most people say god has.

>> No.6581531

>>6581517
different anon here, can you iagine something without limits consisting entirely of limited things, like distinct causal events? because, I can't.

>> No.6581538

>>6581517
>Why is this necessarily impossible?
It answers the question with itself and ends up answering nothing at all. It's paradoxical.

>OP is wrong because saying there is a first cause in no way implies a plan or consciousness or any of the other properties that most people say god has.
Aquinas uses this an argument for God, generally. Not for Christian theology.

>> No.6581542

>>6581531
thats your problem man

(not saying I can, just that people, as finite things, can't. There is nothing that says finite things can't exist within an infinite set, except our finite imaginatons)

>> No.6581550

It's a fucking loaded question. It boils down to language. The problem is that by using the word "Potential" you already assume that there is previous cause and that there is a process included to convert the "potential" into what it can be.

Besides, who the fuck uses "potentially ice"? It's water and water has it own uses.

>> No.6581552

>>6581380
This.
Consciousness and intelligence are most likely phenomenon that emerge out of local interaction of the neurals of the brian, so that would make the Thomistic idea of an intelligent agent making the universe complete nonsense.

>> No.6581555

>>6581449
If by "eternal universe" you mean "eternal in time" then I don't see how you can possibly separate an eternal chain of causality from that concept. In what sense can we say things caused each other if they do not occur at different points in time?

In the same way, we could not possibly understand a concept like 'the passage of time' without causality occurring to display it. Every action has a result and if no actions are occurring then there is no sense in which we can say 'time is passing'. So the concepts 'eternal universe' and 'eternal chain of causality' are not separable in the way you seem to be implying they are.

>> No.6581565

read kant

>> No.6581566

>>6581555
"Time" is just our perception of a block universe.

>> No.6581575

>>6581565
>kant
>the guy who claimed God existed, with his argument related to morals
Bravo Anon

>> No.6581592

>>6581531
Huh? Like 1+1+1+1... being infinity?

>> No.6581599

>>6581538
Well I call taking a shit god and I took a shit today so I proved god exists.

It answers the question with itself? If I can have a causal chain going infinitely into the future, why can't I have one going in the opposite direction other than just cuz?

>> No.6581602

>>6581575
Different anon here, Kant believed that God was a moral mecessity, not that his existence could be proven. And he refuted all ontological arguments, so...he's pretty useful for finding out just what is wrong with OP's pic.

>> No.6581604

>>6581592
Do numbers and sets exist within spacetime?

>> No.6581606

>>6581602
Different Anon here
Can you explain the God being a moral necessity argument to me?

>> No.6581609

>>6581369

Science debunked any notion of a God existing several centuries ago.

>> No.6581616

>>6581604
Sure. Are you going to elaborate?

>> No.6581623

>>6581575
>because he agreed god existed he must have believed this argument for god's existence
bravo anon

read kant

>> No.6581624

>>6581606
Not him, but basically:
He suggests a "Greatest Good" must exist in order for us to impart good into the world.

>> No.6581627

>>6581606
Eh, it's a tad convoluted, but it basically goes like this
>reason dictates moral behaviour
>moral behaviour aims at the highest good
>if there is no god, morality fails to do this as good people don't necessarily get rewarded
therefore, either
>there is a god
or
>there should be a god
It really isn't quite clear, both interpretation appear legitimate.

>> No.6581632

>>6581566
what arguments do you have for time not existing in nature?

>> No.6581634

>>6581599
>Well I call taking a shit god and I took a shit today so I proved god exists.
Well I'm sorry then.

It's an argument for something that is

>singular
>non-physical
>eternal
>contains all ontological perfections
>immutable
>omnipotent
>omniscient
>the first cause of all things

What you call that is up to you. I'm sorry for giving it the title "God".

>> No.6581635
File: 35 KB, 625x626, tmp_23718-14265295605511236056477.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6581635

>>6581609

>> No.6581655

>>6581552
>>6581380
Can someone explain these posts to me

>> No.6581696

>>6581632
Actually, I didn't mean to imply that time does not exist as the fourth dimension of a block universe, just a that our human perception of it leads us to falsely believe there had to have been a first cause.

>> No.6581762

>>6581604
In all likelihood, spacetime is made of numbers. It's why numbers work.

>> No.6581789

>>6581592
that sum diverges to infinity. As in, the limit of that series is infinity. It's not actually infinity

>> No.6581800

paging stan

>> No.6581812

>>6581433

lel

What a fag.

>> No.6581943

What precludes nature itself from having the property of being uncaused? Why must there be this stand-in?

>> No.6581958

>>6581943
1. God has the property of unity
1.1 That means that God is undivisible
1.1.1 that meanst that if God holds property X and Z also holds property X, then Z is God since otherwise Z would be a part of God and God has no parts
2. Assume that nature is uncaused
2.1 God has the property of not being caused
2.1.1 By 1 Nature is God and God is nature

>> No.6581962

>>6581433
either this is amazing b8, or you have autism

>> No.6581981

>>6581958
I agree with this. Nature too, is indivisible.

>> No.6582011

>>6581369
something can be actual with respect to one thing and potential with respect to another. so you can have a loop rather than an infinite line. its an empirical question whether there exist infinite lines, one which humans could never answer

>> No.6582043

>>6581474
you are replacing a member not removing it

>> No.6582051

>>6581958
it should have been:
1.
1.1
1.2
2.
2.1
2.2

you really muffed it up