I believe in a god with linear sucession. A god that creates true order in chaos. A god that never deceives. Measures all his creation exact.
For example you must have prions or some shit if you believe anti-semitism exists in the arab world. that is sociological self hate. They self hated because they let the world bombard them and steal from them. There is no such thing as israel, israel was a kingdom, not even the name of the land. Israel was a short lived concept beginning at the end of the jebusite kingdom. They hebrew were not israelites, nor were the majority Jewish. It is full of misconceptions.
>>567248 Israel just seems like the perfect russia-hungary-iran connection broadcasting their power over those poor imbeciles. In support of a fraudulent testament well dignified while the true meaning and testaments are ill dignified.
>>567273 I believe in God and they are atheist jewish attorneys that played a logic system so thought out that you cant even speak against.
Here it is. They are not hebrews but speak hebrew. It was dead so they resurrected it. Now they are semites. An arab, a true semite, cannot say anything or they will be accused of anti semitism. You get jailtime for speaking the truth. According to the oldest bible written under imperialism. Sons of heber are totally different than they currently believe. Egyptians were seafarers. They hate eugenics but are the first to mandate eugenics. Away from the public ofcourse. Ashkenazi in other languages is pronounced escuzi. They made tragic flaws at the beginning of birth right in how mengele separated them. I was in the middle of all the chaos. Like most people. Israel is a kingdom not a country. Arent we regressing a bit? People preaches a safer world. But only for their children. What about the palestinian children. Dont they have a right? Dont they have a right to claim their ancestral land? One that was taken away 60years ago vs one that they left due to their own will for better commerce 2000 years ago?
>>567327 They are playing a logic based on opposition. You will ask what is a jew? They will say the one you have condemned. You say people in my native country have never heard of the jew. They will respond because they were all killed. You ask them how will they killed? They will say the inquistion. You go back to your native land and seek docs especially when your bloodline possessed some of the biggest parcels of land. You wont find anything. Nothing about jewish, no history. Just that some dabbled in phoenician occult thats about it. Then they will say thats exactly why they were kiled. And you just respond nonesense i come from a long line of witches none of my witches died.
>>567370 Its like this. It is all set up in accordance to a logic. That the macrocosm correspond to the microcosm and vice versa. They build temples in many nations called the body of christ the body of all our truth and logic. If you dont accept these truths as a universal body of doctrine. Then you have fallen out of logic and are an opposer. They are very spiritual but that doesnt mean they abstain from anoher body of learning. Catholics in general honor pagan art forms and accept its poetics and aesthetics plus its conceptualization. If you do not understand then you are less educated and ignorant. You dont go to heaven through any temple or religious body but through the logic instilled by your faith. If you have to control everything you lack faith and an athiest or are in the military or your work depends on it. And keep your house as if Jesus was visiting.
>>567384 Through this logic we know what is going on and what is happening and what will happen. Through another knowledge we know if we are in the state of purgatory. Believe it or not our ancestors saw death as a god and an ultimate sign of honor. Charismatic christianity is a fairly new concept that many dont understand but enjoy because it is very spiritual. However they blame everything on the devil. Catholics will always say there is no greater devil than man. Respect his repose.
>>567395 Thats pretty philosophical. But even faith has an order. An order of our faith, katholicos. How could God become man? Step into virtual reality. You are the God of that world and you have descended from a perfect world into an imperfect one.
As for condoms. They believe sex is spiritual and carnal at the same time so there. However besides stds you can also pass a spirit.
>>567417 >How could God become man? Step into virtual reality. You are the God of that world and you have descended from a perfect world into an imperfect one. Unless your implying the heretical view that Jesus was not fully human or the insane view that your are fully digital in a virtual reality, that's not a very good analogy.
>>567417 Its like this just because you are faithful doesnt mean you are not observing. If you cant do one without the other you are losing foresight. Do you think grown me. Get together and make the most retarded stuff up? And truthfully believe in it? No because it has its logic not based on the carnal but on the observation of the cycles. Sure people joke around and say stupid stuff because its called human instinct and a way to relief.
>>567441 We are all prisoners to Jesus he knows who he is. We dont know the mode of operation or divine apparatus. Or have his view point to say, ohhh, this is why he is half God half man. I didnt know one man can control reality. How did he get here in the first place lol.
That doesn't make any sense at all. If you have two characteristics that are mutually exclusive, you by default can't have them be present in something at the same time. Either these two characteristics aren't mutually exclusive, or Jesus possesed only one of them
>>567497 God is non-competitive to the universe in the Christian worldview (at least to Classical Theism). This has been a concept since at least Moses as the burning bush isn't simply a bush on fire but a bush on fire but not being consumed.
The Trinity, omnipotence as a concept itself, an omniscient God and free will existing, a good God that created bone cancer in children. These are all paradoxes and nonsense for which they have no serious answers worthy of being taken seriously.
They will tell you "god" is just "To Be" and no one can comprehend Him and then tell you they have knowledge that holds the keys to the Gates of Heaven and Hell, places they cannot prove exist.
Use the brain that you have to think, that is all anyone can ask.
>>567547 >obviously you're talking about god as defined in classical theism >"no one can comprehend him" >meanwhile most of the view of god in classical theism comes from philosophical arguments and not from scripture
Let me tell you a story a brother told me. The Hebrews were the original stock to control the mediterranean and africa. They started as a small tribe that set for the waters. They were said to be from the land of the bull. In Jesus time there were three sides fighting for legitimacy. The Judah that ruled was not a Judah but from the sect of the swine. They through themselves in the ground and squealed like pigs. So they saw eating pork an omen. However they wanted to conquer then phillistines to superimpose their regime. Jesus accused them of not being authentic Jew but he was an original heir to the kingship. And he was. So both sides went crazy on him. See the hebrews were the most desired slaves for egypt and egypt went a lonnnnng way to get them. They were given the job as soldiers but usually ended up revolting so they were kept like dogs. this is what drove pharaohs pissed. They were so strong that they themselves would enslave big africans for pharaoh. So they believe that Judahs laugh at Jesus and Christians because it depicts them triumph over Hebrews. The Hebrews didn't believe in a God as we do but in a concept of divinity. So for the Judahs to get the Hebrews to worship a fragile man, is a blessing.
The game gets so eugenically inclined that at the turn of this century some were calling themselves homo sapien sapien, the elect of the elect of the humans. And homo sapiens were nothing but animal like creatures. It basically revolves around the forehead. So they say they are the hebrews and are built like bulls. but in reality they come from the sect of the swine.
>>567577 Havent you seen the Orthodox threads which provide pretty good evidence that the Papacy has lost its apostolic succession and modified church doctrines to suit its own ends whilst the Orthodox are literally preaching the same theology in the same way since the Church was established by Christ?
Was Aquinas ever going to come out of his study and declare he had crunched the theology and it turned out Jesus wasn't God after all? No, every thought he had, every philosophical musing was aimed at proving the thing the thought from the beginning. And he genuinely believed that anyone that disagreed with that should be put to death.
>>567666 But thats the issue its points like that which grind at me, yet I cannot personally find fault in his logic or arguments and arguments by people like No True Scotus who study this at univeristy run circles around me.
>>567658 >Constantine He doesnt even understand Catholic theology, much less can he refute it (In all fairness, this is something that all Orthodox do, considering they're the first protestants). He has fringe concepts of heaven and hell and has go through big hoops in order to assimilate "Le God is Ded" man to Orthodoxy.
4. Forgetting all the other objections and pretending his logic is correct all he has proven is a God, he cannot logically move from that to God turned himself into a human in the desert and sacrificed himself to himself in a Jewish scapegoating ritual or any of the other claims made by Christianity.
>>567702 Knowledge is a subset of belief. You can believe something without knowing it, and you can't know something without believing it.
That is to say, especially considering the complete indestructibility of hard solipsism, agnosticism is the only rational position on any truth claim and thus calling yourself an "agnostic" is literally meaningless.
>genetic fallacy Not the anon you responded to, but I took issue with the agnostic claim you made.
>>567734 You don't need to read any books. All you need to do is identify a claim (usually made as a premise) that the scholastic has no substantiation for. Like, as the anon pointed out, the impossibility of an infinite regress. If their claim rests on false premises, it can be dismissed.
>>567792 I'm not saying it's possible or impossible. Frankly, because I don't care. The issue is people authoritatively claiming it's impossible without proof, like christfags, and then basing further claims on it.
>Maybe I just like to hear both sides to a very compelling argument.
Then you are not apatheistic.
Being an apatheist isn't an argument. It is saying you are an atheist that can't even be bothered to think about or discuss "god", which is a fair enough position. It's not one you would even be bothered to argue though unless you weren't an apatheist at all.
I believe in God. I think firstly, there is good rational argument for it but secondly I am compelled into faith via my interaction with him. The same way one automatically (even if they do not hold rationally) has faith that what they sense with there senses is true (since it evokes changes within) even though they cannot rationally certify it, I have faith in God since it is in interaction with me.
I am aware of the subjectivity but i do not think that vaudevilles my own experience. Just means i must give social ley-way to others.
>>568248 Fluctuations are only intelligible as fluctuations insofar as they are actualisations of potency: they exist in virtue of their act, and actualise potencies in a field, i.e., the quantum vacuum. Act and potency the basic categories of all being, so are unavoidable. You either assume them implicitly, or if you explicitly deny them, end up talking nonsense.
>>568262 >denying act and potency Sounds like pure ignorance to me.
Actuality is that which a thing has, insofar as it exists. Obviously this principle is undeniable, since things exist.
Potency is what a thing has, insofar as it has the capacity to acquire existence in some way or other. Again this is undeniable for a number of reasons.
If one believes that things change, or example, then potency is undeniable, since to change just is to gain some new form of existence. Such would have to be the fulfilment of a capacity, since whatever lacks capacities-to-be-otherwise can only be what it is, and therefore cannot change.
If one believes that there are composite beings, again potency is unavoidable. If the parts lack potencies to become a whole, then no reality can be added to the parts, hence diverse parts could not in any sense acquire the real unity, distinct from the parts, that makes them into real wholes.
If one believes that there are multiple beings, one is also stuck with the act/potency distinction. In anything of which there could be more than one, there must be a real distinction between that in it which can be shared, and that which is unique to itself. Thus multiplicable things are composite, and, as above, possess potencies.
So the only logical alternative to the act/potency distinction is to posit, contrary to all experience, that there is only one being, or that nothing exists.
Hello, I'm Commander Shepard, hero of the Citadel and pinnacle of mankind. You are right, OP. Let's see, we have explored the universe, we have explored the archaeology of every planet, we have dated everything to be incredibly old. We have found hostiles and we defeated them, no part of the universe is unkown to us. And they want us to believe this was made by some "programmers" and is enjoyed by people called "players"? And where are them? There is no evidence no matter how much we invest into science! I'm tired of your disingenous assertions people.
What they basically are trying to do is psychologically detach or deprive people. Their chosen are left complete. Which believe it or not some churches are to be blamed for. For example when growing up zionism wasnt legally acceptable but it was legally fair. Meaning people enjoyed speaking about Israel from a spritual perspective. And by this I mean New Jerusalem. Now Israel in the sense was a land conquered full of capriciousness. The greatest crime against man. So to lower down the burden of the people with these political maneuvers what do you do? In the end the govts will just have to say all is fair. There is no logic for the existence of something except to exist as a device or obstruction.
We observe that in the world, some potentials are made actual. Every change, or act of composition, is the realisation of potentials in something.
No potential becomes actual in and of itself, because a potential is a lack in actuality, and what lacks actuality cannot actually do anything. If potentials become actual, then, they are *made actual* by some actuality distinct from itself.
It is possible that potentials become actual in an extended series as follows: Where a potential P1 realises actuality A1 in virtue of actuality A2, and actuality A2 is in turn the realisation of potentiality P2 in virtue of actuality A3, etc. In such a series, each potential achieves actuality only by derivation from the actuality something else.
Now such a series of derivative actualisers, cannot have infinite members. In an infinite series, each member actualises the others, only insofar as it is itself actualised by some other member. Hence no member in such a series has actuality in and of itself, but is only in potential. A series of nothing but derivative actualisers, then, could not have actuality at all. Hence, an infinite series of derivative actualisers could not be actual. There needs to be some underived actualiser in the series, but any such actualiser would terminate the regress- a First Actualiser.
Now the First Actualiser must be non-composite, since any composite is the actualisation of potentials in its parts to form the whole. If it is non-composite, it must be unique, for to be multiplicable in any respect, as shown earlier, requires a real distinction between what is held in common, and what is particular to each. Since all actualisation traces back to a First Actualiser, and the First Actualiser must be unique. must be some unique being from which all other actualisation comes. This is the being Aquinas calls God.
>>565251 >Theology as in "Imma prove to you that God exists."
That's not what theology does at all, lol. Theology already presupposes that the religion is true. Getting to that point is apologetics, or whatever you wanna call it. Most of western philosophy includes some concept of an ultimate being, that doesn't make it theology.
>>569752 Gonna have to explain more than this. The First Way demonstrates that every instance of change (or actualisation of potency) traces down to God. How does the prospect of there being no *future* change imply that the First Way fails? The cat is already out of the bag.
>>569734 >cannot have infinite members Unjustified assertion.
Aaaand case closed. If you think everything must have an end, like poor Aquinas, you're free to come up with the final number of pi, or what lies at the bottom of fractals.
By the way, this argumentation is literally argument by obfuscation. It's obtuse and arcane language that sounds like ass and barely means shit, you could've condensed this into two sentences. Although being concise wasn't the intention, was it.
>For it to be a way, it requires an absolute inference from the observation you've made, which, unfortunately for you, is impossible
You've not raised any reason to think that it is impossible. That changes may not occur in future is irrelevant to the argument. The argument itself proceeds from the analysis of what it is to change in the most basic sense. Unless you think that one day a change could occur which is not the actualisation of potency, you can't really avoid the conclusion. Indeed, even this would not falsify the conclusion, since the conclusion is that all actualisation of potency traced down to a First Actualiser.
>>565082 Yes, and hold The 'Path of Sincerity' as a core tenant: >A certain person said, "In the Saint's mausoleum there is a poem that goes :
>"If in one's heart >He follows the path of sincerity, >Though he does not pray >Will not the gods protect him?"
>What is this path of sincerity?"
>A man answered him by saying, ''You seem to like poetry. I will answer you with a poem.
>As everything in this world is but a sham, >Death is the only sincerity.
>It is said that becoming as a dead man in one's daily living is the following of the path of sincerity." >-Yamamoto Tsunetomo, The Hagakure
>"Now departure from the world of men is nothing to fear, if gods exist: because they would not involve you in any harm. If they do not exist, or if they have no care for humankind, then what is life to me in a world devoid of gods, or devoid of providence? But they do exist, and they do care for humankind: and they have put it absolutely in man's power to avoid falling into the true kinds of harm." > —Marcus Aurelius, Meditations 2.11
>>569835 >"Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but...will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones."
>>569825 >You've not raised any reason to think that it is impossible.
Well, yeah, I did. You deduce a law from an observation that could potentially be wrong. This potential is never removed, as people can't live forever and their senses are not perfect.
>That changes may not occur in future is irrelevant to the argument.
No, it's in fact very relevant, since it's a potentially wrong assumption you simply assert as absolutely true. You've build your theological system on a house of cards
>The argument itself proceeds from the analysis of what it is to change in the most basic sense.
And that analysis is done by your fallible brain, which occasionally makes categorical errors, so that doesn't mean anything
>Unless you think that one day a change could occur which is not the actualisation of potency, you can't really avoid the conclusion.
I can, because I don't know everything and I don't know the future. Nor do you
>Indeed, even this would not falsify the conclusion, since the conclusion is that all actualisation of potency traced down to a First Actualiser.
And, as I've said before, that conclusion is based on your reasoning, which you can never assume as absolutely flawless. Unless you can tell me when the next stock market crash is and what the winning numbers are for the next Powerball lottery.
If you're the guy I've been replying to, then you've lost track of your own argument. You (the guy to whom I was replying) were the one who asserted that it is impossible to draw an absolute inference from the actualisation of potency to God, and who further asserted that the possibility that change might not occur in future somehow showed that such an inference could not be drawn. I was just pointing out that this was a huge non-sequitur.
I did not substantiate the truth claim that God exists with "it's possible he exists" (though, actually, this *does* imply that God exists- see Plantinga). I rather substantiated the claim with an analysis of change, adapting the First Way of Thomas Aquinas. That argument has yet to be attacked in any substantive way.
>>569827 >I already told you why that's impossible. You can't infer eternal laws from temporary observations.
We have no reason to assume non-eternal laws from consistent observation. You have provided no reason for us to think otherwise and if you did, you would have to assert why that is eternally the case and refute yourself. At best, you're using the problem of induction to make an argument from ignorance.
>It actually kind of is. Otherwise, the 'fallible' part is completely wrong, as you would then deny the ability for theories and ideas, no matter how well tested, to be false.
Not the case, for theories and ideas to be considered wrong they must be at least intelligibly understood as wrong. Science and rational inquiry rests on the notion that the natural world is intelligible which itself relies on the idea of consistency between things in nature so to form connections to intelligibly grasp them. Again, the fallibility of science is not the idea that rational inquiry can itself by refuted but rather that our understandings from that inquiry can be wrong.
You are, in fact, refuting the capacity for science to gain truth of nature.
>>569875 >This isn't really an objection to anything.
Yes it is, because you assume a law from your personal confirmation, which isn't absolute. Your reasoning makes no sense
>Indeed, it's self-refuting, since if it were true all arguments fail, including itself.
No, because I don't assume absolute truth. I'm perfectly fine with the idea that I could be wrong about the things I believe in. I also don't propose a faultless system of truth and morals, so absolute truth isn't a requirement for me.
For you however, it is, and obtaining these absolute truths, as I've just explained before is completely impossible, for me, for you, and for Aquinas. Your problem, not mine
>>569902 >Yes it is, because you assume a law from your personal confirmation, which isn't absolute.
You're thinking in terms of generalities derived from induction. Since Aquinas doesn't do any of this, but demonstrates God's existence from what it is to change in the first place and the observation that change, somewhere, occurs. His arguments, being deductive, are not fallible
>Your reasoning makes no sense
The reasoning is perfectly sensible, indeed is logically ironclad, so that you would have to deny the observation in the first place in order to deny the conclusion. To dispute this, one either has to show the gap in the logic, or deny logical inference altogether.
>No, because I don't assume absolute truth. I'm perfectly fine with the idea that I could be wrong about the things I believe in. I also don't propose a faultless system of truth and morals, so absolute truth isn't a requirement for me.
You still presume the validity of deductive inference, since you are still trying to make an argument and arrive at some conclusion, even if you regard it as provisional. And that validity is all that Aquinas needs to make his arguments. Happily, this does lead us to sound truths of God, nature and the good.
>>565082 Agnostic here Can you provide proof that he doesn't exist with facts and not your feelings?
Otherwise this will be another argumentum ad nauseam
Atheist's are just as bad as religious folks because they claim to know for fact something that is unknowable. Neither can prove their case (using actual facts, not opinion) because the existence of a God cannot be proven or disproven. It's simply not impossible. Not one person on this floating rock know what this is all about or whether or not there is a God
And so it becomes ad nauseam
Basically atheist/religious threads are just two mirrors pointed at one another creating a mirror tunnel
>>570989 >u can't know nuthin!!!! Taking the stance that something is probably not true because there is no evidence to support it is not the same as saying "I am 100% sure that this is totally impossible."
>>571011 It's likely that all the gods that are worshiped in a religious context are myths created by man, as there is no evidence for the happenings in 'holy' books. There are claims today not backed up by evidence of miracles being done, like the ones said to be done by Sathya Sai Baba. The claims by Prahlad Jani that he's hasn't eaten or drank anything in years, there's some doubt cast on that claim.
Honestly, it's difficult to know where to begin with that mess. Let me just address a number of broad themes.
>1) Act and potency aren't real.
I dealt with this here: >>568324. Act and potency as real features of being are necessary for there to be many objects, changing objects and composite objects, the very sorts of which science studies and presupposes.
>2) Science shows us that fundamental particles exist, and that these don't change.
Again, this simply presupposes crass reductionism, rather than demonstrates it. If the higher macroscopic levels of reality (i.e., the level at which the arguer himself exists) don't exist, then this fellow is simply denying his own existence. Science can study all sorts of levels of reality, from the quantum, to the chemical, biological, psychological and cosmological, and these are all, unless we have a damn good metaphysical argument, real.
There's lots of bluster about time being more fundamental than change, but that's all it is. The act and potency describes what happens to a thing's existence in change, whereas time is merely the quantitative aspect of change. Quantity and existence are different things, and of the two it is obvious that the latter is the more basic principle. Thus, time flows because things change, not the other way around.
>4) the attributes of God
Simplicity and uniqueness, can are in the last paragraph here. >>569734. From these it follows that the first mover must be omnipotent (because all other being there is or could be comes from it), immaterial (because what utterly lacks composition must also lack extension), and the sustainer of reality.
Omniscience can be derived in a number of ways. The simplest is that knowledge of something is to know a particular through some general principle which gives actuality to it. The PM, being the source of the actuality of everything else, is in itself that principle in relation to everything. So the Prime Mover is omniscient.
>>571302 Secondary sources would be all of Feser's stuff (The Last Superstition, Aquinas, Neo-Scholastic Essays and Scholastic Metaphysics, Oderberg's Real Essentialism, Wallace's modelling of nature. Lots of individual papers from all sorts. Smattering of Maritain and Garigou-Lagrange.
Primary sources I've read include most of the Summa Theologiae, the Summa Contra Gentiles, De Esse et Essentia, De Anima, working on 'Of God and His Creatures' atm.
>>571302 Not him, but there's all the Neo Scholastic Manuals too here: https://www3.nd.edu/~maritain/jmc/aristotl.htm and Feser lists some books in a blog post titled "The Scholastic's Bookshelf Part IV"
Also, there's the "Sacrae Theologiae Summa" which is a work intended for seminarians and priests and deals with Catholic theology. It's pretty extensive but it's pretty good.
Sort of a side interest. I study philosophy and law, going to be a lawyer (I hope). No, it's not made me Catholic. I'm still a staunch evangelical. One of my friends got into Scholasticism because of me and crossed the Tiber recently though!
>>571380 I wouldnt know, actually. The problem is that nobody bothers to criticize Scholasticism as such, mainly because it is seen as pure rationalization (by both Christians and non-Christians) and is dismissed before hand. The most you could get is Scholastics disagreeing with each other, but not a critique of Scholasticism as such.
>>571380 Those things are rare as hen's teeth. Anthony Kenny (used to be RC, now agnostic) is the only philosopher I can think of whose expertise on Aquinas I can respect who is also critical of Aquinas.
Theoretically, I have a pretty tolerant ecclesiology. It just seems obvious to me that the Spirit is regenerating men outside the Catholics/Orthodox, and that Protestants, especially the conservative ones, confess enough of the truth to benefit from salvation.
Practically, my church satisfies all my spiritual and intellectual needs (I go to a university church, so there's no shortage of smart guys who take our theological and philosophical inheritance seriously), so I'm not particularly inclined to move.
>>571445 I dont know, I havent seen him since /lit/. I recommended him to another theology/philosophy forum because he was just getting the same ol' critiques of Aquinas, so I told him he'd get more substantial replies there.
In the Montheistic/Abrahamic sense, God is the Creator, Former and Architect of all Matter and Life (thereby Nature) of the Universe. He is Eternal and Time Itself. He is the Master and Judge of all His Creations, who sets Perfect Laws and Regulations for them.
In the Polytheistic/Animistic sense, the Gods are either a Collective Organization or are Individualistic; in the particular aspect of the deity's personality, and are usually restricted to one Force of Nature (i.e Zeus, Hadad and Thor are Gods of Lightning).
>>571160 >The justification is right there, man. In the sentences immediately following. Put in some effort. No, it isn't there. If it were there you would've attempted to further explain it. Simply parroting some obtuse copy pasta doesn't mean you made or understood the argument or its underpinnings.
>It's as complex as it needs to be. If you think it can be encapsulated in two sentences, you probably don't understand it. No, actually, it's way more complicated and uses arcane language. I don't know why this is, if you're copying a theist apologetic textbook or something, but there's literally zero reason what you said couldn't occupy a third of the space and use normal human language.
>In an infinite series, each member actualises the others, only insofar as it is itself actualised by some other member. Hence no member in such a series has actuality in and of itself, but is only in potential. A series of nothing but derivative actualisers, then, could not have actuality at all. There needs to be some underived actualiser in the series, but any such actualiser would terminate the regress. There must be a First Actualiser in any such series.
>wah it's too complicated
I dunno what to say, fella. I'm so glad that you understand the proof so well. Surely then you must firmly grasp that the existence of God is rationally inescapable, given the actualisation of potency.
>>571684 All of it, plus: -Why your first cause isn't derivative of anything else -Isn't bound by the law of causality -Why the same that's true of math can't be true of this universe (math deals with infinites all the time) -And finally, for the fun of it, how you get from being a deist to a slobbering theist.
>>571694 What I don't understand is how >i dont know what caused something or >there is some apparent paradox i dont understand leads to the conclusion >god did it and not only that but god has some form or characteristics described by some religion, or personification that is not at all implied from the lack of knowledge or explanation for something
>>571737 Except for the fact that humans are described as made in the image of god. It's not just a matter of what to draw, Yahweh started out as a sky god of war, not this nebulous concept that's arisen recently.
So the series we were talking about, in brief, is where some thing A, is actual in virtue of some thing B, which is in turn actual only in virtue of some thing C, etc. Each member, because it derives its actuality from that of some other member, does not have actuality in itself, but derivatively through a further cause.
This kind of series cannot be infinite, because an infinite series would be nothing but derivative actualities, each of which would lack actuality in itself, hence could not impart actuality to anything else.
A series consisting only in derivative actualisers, then, would not have any actuality at all, hence could not exist. Let me paint you a picture.
Suppose I tell you that I have gold. You ask me where it is, and I say it's not on me; it's with my bank. You ask my bank where the gold I have is, and the bank says it's with their security contractors. You ask the contractor, and they point to more subcontractors, etc.. Each member in this series 'has' my gold, but in a derivative sense. Now think of the gold as 'actuality.' If someone actually possessed the gold, i.e., possessed gold in an underivative manner, then they would end the series of subcontractors.
If you posit an infinite series of subcontractors, however, each of which could only be said to have the gold in virtue of something else, and then nobody in the chain would actually have any gold, since no member of the infinite series possesses any gold. For this reason, an infinite series of subcontractors is impossible to affirm while maintaining that I truly have gold. As with gold, so it goes with actuality. I hope that's clear.
I'll deal with the further matters in another post.
>Math and the universe It's not a problem of counting abstracta then counting physical things and finding we can count equally high, so it's not about finitude vs infinitude per se.
If the series is infinite, it can contain *only* derivative actualities, which do not in themselves have actuality. Even if the series is finite and contains only derivative actualities, likewise that series could not exist. Only if the series terminates in something which is actual in an underivative way, could any such series exist.
>theism vs deism If one grants the Prime Mover, then all change depends on the same being in order to occur. The PM, then, is continually involved with keeping the universe in motion, and contingent things in existence, else nothing could exist or change. This naturally lends itself to theism, a God who is always involved, rather than a hands-off deist god.
>>571782 Must be another one, religious people were a shade lower than 25% when I checked it. Again, this was at the start of the board, maybe being religious has been co-opted as a meta on this board.
>>571762 >Because it's not the actualisation of potential. And it is what?
>What law would that be? http://lmgtfy.com/?q=causality
How your uncaused god came into existence. If he didn't, and was always there, the same can be said about the universe and a baseless assumption omitted.
>>571762 >If the series is infinite, it can contain *only* derivative actualities, which do not in themselves have actuality. Even if the series is finite and contains only derivative actualities, likewise that series could not exist. Only if the series terminates in something which is actual in an underivative way, could any such series exist. Describe how something that is derived isn't something actual.
>If one grants the Prime Mover, then all change depends on the same being in order to occur. The PM, then, is continually involved with keeping the universe in motion, and contingent things in existence, else nothing could exist or change. This naturally lends itself to theism, a God who is always involved, rather than a hands-off deist god. Nice rationalization. There's nothing that mandates the prime mover to be even conscious or exist at any moment after he actualized the universe or whatever you want to call it, let alone interfere.
>>571769 >Classical Theism is in fact the older mainstream view in at least Christianity. Theistic Personalism - the anthropomorphic view of God - becoming mainstream is a modern thing historically. When are you going to stop peddling this bullshit? Paganism is theistic personalism, it's what religion started as.
>Describe how something that is derived isn't something actual.
Something that exists in a derivative way (e.g., as a whole exists through its parts), by definition gets what existence it has from something else. So such a thing neither has existence nor non-existence absolutely: whether it exists depends on whether there is something from which it can derive its existence. If one posits some derivative thing B as the source of derivative thing A's existence, however, then the series would not exist, since B has no existence whereby it may impart existence to A, hence neither of them would exist.
Multiplying the numbers of derivative beings to infinity, will not give you anything except more things which lack existence, and would bring you no closer to positing an actual series. Thus, one needs to posit an underivative being, which does have existence in and of itself, to give rise to the possibility of any series of derivative beings.
>There's nothing that mandates the prime mover to be even conscious or exist at any moment after he actualized the universe or whatever you want to call it, let alone interfere.
I take it you don't understand the Prime Mover, then. The Prime Mover is not primarily a "pre-big-bang" mover, but a first sustainer of motion. All series of sustaining movers must ultimately rely on the same PM, since the PM is necessarily unique. So as long as things change, or contingent things continue to exist, we can know that the PM continues to exist and impart existence to us.
Because the PM knows us through being our First Cause, moreover, he know that he continues to know us and will our being. See the last paragraph in here for why the Prime Mover must be omniscient: >>571260
Why must this debate be so muddled with archaic language and useless arguments? Shouldn't something that "obviously exists" just be apparent and not have to rely on "muh scared feelings" or a 2000 year old book? Or rambling monologues?
I understand divine mystery and whatnot but to me it just seems like a lame cop out. there's no tangible evidence in the world, the world doesn't NEED God >inb4 lame excuse "God fills in the blanks science can't explain" They said that about all of creation until it's slowly been whittled away to where we're at now, and hey look, theists are STILL arguing that the things we can't explain = God.
Until there is proof of a God in any form, in plain language (again, something like this should be simple, no?) all this semantics crap needs to go. I've seen the stupid anti evolution jazz which is just absurd, so don't try that unless you have scientific backing. Besides, that doesn't necessarily prove God either.
This whole thread just makes it obscenely clear that theists have no real evidence besides muddled aquinas or "muh supernatural unprovable tho" claims.
Yeah, but there are big problems with the implications of all of this is , for a start it is special pleading.
If you are positing one thing that can have existence in and of itself, then logically so can multiple other things. There could be multiple 'prime movers' and if you say that is impossible then so is your prime mover.
Nor do you demonstrate omniscience just through being the start of a chain.
>Yeah, but there are big problems with the implications of all of this is , for a start it is special pleading
Actually no. To prove that there is a prime mover for any given chain of movers, is a separate thing from proving that there is only one prime mover. I agree that the elimination of an infinite regress only shows that there is *at least* one prime mover.
The reason why the Prime Mover must be unique, is because it is non-composite. If it were composite, it would exist through the actualisation of potentials in its parts to form a whole, hence, it would not be the prime mover.
If the prime mover is non-composite, however, it must also be utterly unique: for something to be multiplicable in some respect, is for there to be a real distinction between that which is particular to itself, and that which is common to the many. But then, to be multiplicable would require a being to be composite. Since the Prime Mover is non-composite, it is non-multiplicable, i.e., unique.
"Movement" refers to the process of being moved, or the actualisation of potency. The process is dependent upon its constituents, i.e., the thing in motion, and that which is imparting motion.
"Mover," however, refers to a being rather than a process. This is appropriate, since only a being could have non-composite and underived being. It's not really anthropocentric, since most everything is a being of some kind.
>>572043 >The reason why the Prime Mover must be unique, is because it is non-composite. If it were composite, it would exist through the actualisation of potentials in its parts to form a whole, hence, it would not be the prime mover.
>>565082 I believe in God but sometimes I wish I didn't. I often find myself attempting to interpret the Bible (which I haven't read in its entirety) in a way that would allow me to continue to live a life of sin. But I can't shake the beliefs that were instilled in me over thirteen years of Catholic schooling.
Learn to follow an argument, champ. The conclusion is "the Prime Mover must be unique." The premises are, "the Prime Mover is not composite," and, "Multiplicability entails composition." (and there are subsidiary arguments for these premises). The conclusion is not identical to either of the premises.
The movement you talk about involves the actual pull of gravity and the actual inertia of the falling object (the movers) and the rock which has the potential to move which is being actualised (the moved). So there obviously are movers and movement. if you want to ignore them, fine, but the components of the motion are still there.
Every movement insofar as it is a movement contains this transition from potency to actuality, in virtue of some pre-existent actuality. This is because no potential actualises itself, for insofar as it is potential, it is not actual, hence cannot actually do anything.
Every movement involves mover and moved, and this would be true of the first movement as well as any subsequent movement.
Don't underestimate the number of true suckers among the theists on 4chan.
Remember, apologetics is some of the slickest marketing ever invented. People like Ravi Zacharias use some of the oldest tricks of the trade of advertising to convince people to buy into their invisible product. Say what you want about the fedora meme, it has all the hallmarks of successful advertising.
Sure. The basic idea of God is that he is the most-fundamental reality, in virtue of which everything else exists. It's perfectly serious, since it is thinking about existence itself in terms of its absolute first principles. It's also very ancient, and where theists disagree with each other, they will be disagreeing about the attributes of this most fundamental reality (e.g., some Hindus will say it is impersonal, whereas the Abrahamites will insist that it is in some sense personal, pantheists will insist that it's the only thing which exists, etc).
As something which is essentially an effect of God, you are more perfectly what you are, the better your actions conform to the range of ends God sets. Since all perfection therefore consists in right relation to God, God ought to be your object of first concern. If worship is treating the thing worshipped as one's object of highest concern, then, you ought to worship God.
I wouldn't say I "believe" in god, but I acknowledge the possibility that there may be some force or power that created the universe and continues to persist within and/or outside it. Perhaps such an entity, if it exists, is even conscious, and in that case it would meet a very abstract definition of "god". No one really has any idea why there is something instead of nothing, or why the universe abides by the specific natural laws it does. In this total vacuum of explanation, if you inexplicably "feel" that there is a creator, then that is a legitimate (though obviously not objective or conclusive) reason to hold that belief.
However, I find organized religion pretty nonsensical.
Which question is begged? That God is by definition the First Cause, or that there is a First Cause?
The former is not question-begging, but merely points out the referent of the term for the purposes of the discussion.
The latter is not question-begging either, because it isn't giving an argument for the First Cause. The point of the whole post, remember, is to give an account of why the First Cause ought to be worshipped, not to argue for its existence. If you're triggered by people treating God as real, treat the discourse like a hypothetical. "If there were a First Cause, you would have to worship it because..."
>Any form of argument where the conclusion is assumed in one of the premises. Many people use the phrase “begging the question” incorrectly when they use it to mean, “prompts one to ask the question”. That is NOT the correct usage. Begging the question is a form of circular reasoning.
>>575018 Same reason 2+2 is 4. God is simply the forces that created the universe. I know it happened and God is the force that made it happen. Whether people interpret this as le bearded man or spaghetti or whatever is up to them
>>574965 Guy you were accusing of begging the question, here. The question that I answered was, "What is God?" not "What cause the universe?" and the answer was, "The First Cause of all reality." This was not a premise in an argument for the conclusion that God caused the universe, but supplying a definition for a term for the purposes of discussion.
The contention that God is by definition the First Cause of all reality, is logically compatible with there being nothing in reality meeting the definition. Hence it is compatible with the proposition that God is not the first cause of the universe (because nothing is).
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with the post's information.