Every time somebody asks for evidence of a god I bring up the

Aquinas argues in favor of a generic God not the Christian Trinity. Even Muslims and Deists can use his arguments. Just thought I'd say that.

what if I just...I dunno ;)...rejected aristotelian metaphysics? :* B)

File: Mercurius.jpg (130KB, 670x360px) Image search: [Google]

130KB, 670x360px

> Everything must have a cause. Therefore, God should exist!
> So... What is a cause of God?
> Don't be a retard! There is none. It isn't like anything must have a cause to exist, anyway.

>>1578450

Yeah that's pretty obvious. I wonder why people always feel the need to point that out. It's so obvious.

>>1578478

An eternal being explains his own existence. God never "began" to exist so it doesn't need a cause.

>>1578489
> God never "began" to exist
If something never began to exist, than it doesn't exist. Simply as that.

>>1578431
B-theory of time

It's because that argument implies ESP.

>>1578503

If universe had no uncaused cause than why did it begin?

File: wow.png (151KB, 395x345px) Image search: [Google]

151KB, 395x345px

>>1578431
> cause outside of the universe
Such cause is the collapse of previous universe.

>>1578431
There is absolutely no requirement for there to be a prime mover. Existence may very well be a self-feeding loop that simply transforms energy from one state to another, which fits very well into the theory of Big Bangs and Big Crunches, where the universe continuously goes through expansions and then collapses back into an infinitely dense state, only to expand again and again and again.

>>1578489
And why can't the universe have always existed?

>>1578517

But you're just moving the problem back. The universe that caused our universe doesn't explain its own existence.

>>1578479
Because "God" for most people is the Abrahamic God, and they assume that God equals dogmatic religion.

the past doesn't even exist

checkmate

>>1578515
Why there should be a cause? It just begin.
Like God just exist in your theory without any cause behind it.

>>1578523
It's the same universe, anon. It has always existed and it always will exist. It just expands and contracts over billions of years.

>>1578518
>And why can't the universe have always existed?

We know the universe had a beginning. We call it the big bang, and we know it will have an end. We call that heat death. If it has a beginning and/or an end then it can't be eternal.

If you take a hot plate of food out of the oven and leave it on the counter, over time the plate will cool down. This process is whats important here. The room gets hotter and the plate gets cooler until they both reach the same temperature, or equilibrium. Well the same thing is happening to our universe. The stars will eventually burn out or explode until there is just a thin mist of atoms spread throughout the universe at absolute zero. The coldest temperature anything can be. Scientists call this "heat death". If the universe were eternal than it would have already happened. If you see a flashlight that is dead, it could have been there for all eternity. But if the flashlight is shining, then you know it could not have been shining forever because the batteries would have run out a long time ago.

>>1578533

That's simply not true. We know the universe and time had a beginning. This is what the Big Bang is.

>>1578533
Whoever thou mayest be, beloved stranger, whom I meet here for the first time, avail thyself of this happy hour and of the stillness around us, and above us, and let me tell thee something of the thought which has suddenly risen before me like a star which would fain shed down its rays upon thee and every one, as befits the nature of light. - Fellow man! Your whole life, like a sandglass, will always be reversed and will ever run out again, - a long minute of time will elapse until all those conditions out of which you were evolved return in the wheel of the cosmic process. And then you will find every pain and every pleasure, every friend and every enemy, every hope and every error, every blade of grass and every ray of sunshine once more, and the whole fabric of things which make up your life. This ring in which you are but a grain will glitter afresh forever. And in every one of these cycles of human life there will be one hour where, for the first time one man, and then many, will perceive the mighty thought of the eternal recurrence of all things:- and for mankind this is always the hour of Noon

>>1578431
The Kalam is a poor argument because it's based on an obsolete ontology of time (A-theory of time)

>>1578523
> doesn't explain its own existence
The Eternal Circle itself is the explanation.

>>1578542
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1206.2382.pdf

>>1578536
>We know the universe had a beginning. We call it the big bang,
No and no and no and no. The big bang is simply the point at which the singularity started expanding. We quite literally have no fucking idea of what was before it, since our laws of physics do not apply to the infinitely dense state the universe was in.
>and we know it will have an end.
No we don't. For all we know, the theory about big crunches may very well be real, which means there is no real death to the universe, as it will simply proceed to collapse into itself and transform energy back into usable form.

>If it has a beginning and/or an end then it can't be eternal.
Unless, as I said, it's a loop of expansions and collapses.

>>1578542
No. The Big Bang is the expansion of the universe from an infinitely dense state called the singularity. Our current knowledge of physics and reality does not allow us to apply laws and theories to that state, but we know that state existed before the big bang and there's no reason to assume it all just popped into existence at that very moment. The singularity existed before the big bang.

>lol if God created time and causality then what created God

There was no "before" time. The concepts of before and after simply do not apply to God because he created them. The same is true of causality.

The universe clearly exists as a series of chronological packets, and the argument can be made that there is causal logic built into the structure.

This is the residue of design.

>>1578553

What makes you think there is an eternal circle of life?

>>1578562
Na-ah, my Mega-God is better than your God and doesn't have to follow your laws.

>>1578560
>an infinitely dense state called the singularity

you realize this is all theoretical of course.

>current knowledge of physics and reality does not allow us to apply laws and theories to that state, but we know that state existed before the big bang

strange, something existing "before" the unfolding of space-time.

What will they think of next.

>>1578536
>If the universe were eternal than it would have already happened.
This doesn't follow and your analogy isn't adequate. The Big Bang was the beginning of the universe but it wasn't the beginning of all matter. We have no idea what happened before the Big Bang or how long it had been there.

>>1578562
If God isn't a part of causal system than he can't be a cause of anything.

>>1578553

>circular logic doesn't count if I'm arguing against divine necessity

>>1578515
At this level of "discussion", is there any difference between an uncreated god and an uncreated universe?
Aren't they basically the same thing in your feeble minds?

>>1578573
>you realize this is all theoretical of course.
Per our current understanding and observations of the universe, everything leads to the universe having started expanding from a point, to which our current laws of physics do not apply, as by extrapolating we reach a state where the universe had infinite density and temperature, which in turn breaks down general relativity and with it pretty much everything we know. So yes, it's theoretical as in our current knowledge simply does not apply to such a state.

>strange, something existing "before" the unfolding of space-time.
If space-time unfolded, it had to have existed. That is the singularity and the expansion is the Big Bang.

File: zeph.png (10KB, 455x250px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 455x250px

>>1578570
> not being uncountably higher in hierarchy of the beyond omnipotent beings
> not existing outside the outside of the outside of the universe

>>1578533

Steady State Theory has been btfo for 70 years.

The universe is slated for eternal expansion at a rate that outstrips the gravitational bind, all particles in our universe will end up absolutely cold and dispersed across the void after an unimaginably huge amount of time, and will not reunify.

This is a one shot deal, so says the almighty Red-Blue shift.

>>1578577
>The Big Bang was the beginning of the universe but it wasn't the beginning of all matter. We have no idea what happened before the Big Bang or how long it had been there.

It's irreverent because the point is that the universe is not eternal. If there were an infinite number of days we would never reach today, and heat death would have already occurred.

>>1578431
>"or its been disproven" and they won't touch it anymore.
Radioactive decay occurs spontaneously and without an external cause.

>>1578611
t. craigcuck

>>1578596

It's not the same thing because we know the cause of the universe doesn't explain its own existence.

>>1578587
> god exist
> because
> god exist
Guys... It is totally not circular logic! It is just... God being... eternal! Trust me! XD

>>1578585
>If God isn't a part of causal system than he can't be a cause of anything.

If the universe actually adheres to a causal system, it is because God literally made that system possible. He is super-causal, not bound either within or outside that system.

On my part I'm inclined to doubt in our concepts of causal relation, cause Hume and Berkley had some pretty good points in that regard.

>>1578609
What Steady State Theory?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bounce
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Crunch
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclic_model

>>1578609
>Steady State Theory has been btfo for 70 years.

Yeah its sad to still see people spouting that shit. The biggest proponent of this theory was an atheist who mocked the guy discovered the big bang and accused him of trying to inject religion into science. Even he gave up on the steady state theory.

>>1578633
> universe actually adheres to a causal system
Can you prove that universe as a whole adheres to causal system? This is obviously a false as any of possible causes should be a part of universe, so in the end there is no cause for universe itself. Super causal solutions doesn't solve anything, if God is a part of super causal system what is a super cause of God? Mega God? Top fucking autism.

>>1578601
>If space-time unfolded, it had to have existed.

Yes, apparantly as an infinitely compact and reduced singular point.

That kind of structure does not allow for linear temporal progression, what we call time. This "time" allows for change.

If the singularity shares all the qualities you attribute to it, it should have never broken down. It should be an eternal structure, without change or degrading entropic flux.

Clearly it isn't, but all evidence seems to point towards it once being that way. Which raises the question of what kind of outside force or influence could have disturbed that eternal balance if the balanced point was literally everything that could ever exist as one?

>>1578611
I don't see how that follows. The singularity could have always existed and we were born at a time (relatively) close to whatever triggered the big bang. Eventually the universe will be dead, but not now.

>>1578611
The current age of the universe is not old enough to have reached equilibrium

>>1578656
>Can you prove that universe as a whole adheres to causal system?

No, I can't even prove that the area immediately around me adheres to causality.

That's why I'm inclined to doubt it.

>if God is a part of super causal system what is a super cause of God?

Talk about autism. You really don't understand what omnipotence means, do you?

>>1578656

> if God is a part of super causal system what is a super cause of God?

I think you're misunderstanding. Everything that began to exist needs a cause. "Began to exist" are the key words. An eternal being would explain its own existence so it doesn't need a cause.

>>1578664
>That kind of structure does not allow for linear temporal progression, what we call time.
What, why not? Explain.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerating_expansion_of_the_universe

the position that the universe will not collapse back on itself.

>>1578623
So you're saying the universe might as well be eternal?

Again, is there any difference whatsoever between an ever-existing prime mover and an ever-existing universe?

>>1578666

If the singularity was eternal then it would always stay a singularity. It makes no sense that it would change.

>>1578431
>With the "discovery" of the Big Bang we now have scientific proof on top of the philosophical that the universe isn't eternal


Da fuck are you talking about?

Pre Big Bang, there is no surviving information and very likely impossible for any information to survive. A huge amount of matter was in a relatively small amount of space and expanded outward. It makes no claim as to how that matter got there or what (if anything) it was doing before expansion.

You can still make a very plausible argument for the eternality of matter-energy.

>>1578690
Until we find out what makes the universe expansion accelerate, we cannot entirely dismiss the big crunch.

>>1578681

Imagine all possible moments collapsed into one another. You could not distinguish between them.

This is the theoretical singularity, there is no time in a structure like that. Therefore it is eternal and unchanging.

But clearly it appears to be changing. So either this singularity is impossible or something impossible happened to disturb it.

File: 1462305670263.gif (638KB, 250x251px) Image search: [Google]

638KB, 250x251px

>>1578690
Unless it's fed by dark matter which may very well at one point run out, stopping the expansion, allowing for a big crunch.

>>1578679
Assuming "things exist that do not come into existence" is assuming that something akin to a God exists, and you can't use it as a premise to prove God exists without being circular.

>>1578706
>Pre Big Bang

lol

SPACE AND TIME ARE THE SAME THING PEOPLE

>>1578708
>Imagine all possible moments collapsed into one another. You could not distinguish between them.
Which does not mean those moments don't exist. It simply means they are as one.

>This is the theoretical singularity, there is no time in a structure like that. Therefore it is eternal and unchanging.
That does not explain to me why time could not exist in a singularity. There is no time because there is no time. God exists because he exists and so forth.

>>1578701
But it did so maybe it does make sense that it would change. I don't know, you don't know. Enough with this "therefore god" bullshit though.

>>1578712

Well the cause of space and time cannot be bound by those things so the cause of those things must be eternal.

>>1578676
> What omnipotence means.
It means that your logic is garbage. If you doesn't know about the principle of explosion it says, that when your logic have contradictions, everything is possible, to claim existence of omnipotent being, that literally make everything possible, is to claim that your logic literally doesn't make any of sense.

>>1578719
>It simply means they are as one.

Which means that our normal conception of "before and after" time goes right out the window, at which point still using the word time is just useless pleb rhetoric because at the singular level existence is timeless.

>>1578725

He makes a very good point about it here >>1578708

This isn't just lazy "therefore dun it", this is realizing that god is the best explanation for it.

>>1578679
If something doesn't began to exist than it doesn't exist as you need at least began to exist to exist.

>>1578750

Then what caused the universe to exist?

>>1578759
It just started to exist. What causes one atom to decay and other not to? It just happens.

>>1578759
A peanut

Disprove this.

File: 1464892738475.jpg (161KB, 866x838px) Image search: [Google]

161KB, 866x838px

>>1578744
>this is realizing that god is the best explanation for it.
http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html

>>1578708
> it appears to be changing.
> appears
Changes are illusion, nothing changes, actually.

>>1578769

This would mean that time is infinite, so there would be an infinite number of days. The implication if that were true is that we would never reach today.

>>1578759
People in the future who traveled in the past and created the universe. :^)

>>1578785
>The implication if that were true is that we would never reach today.
No it's not, it simply means there will be an eternity of days after today.

>>1578738

>to claim existence of omnipotent being, that literally make everything possible

Yes.

A1 : (A = ~A) T

>to claim that your logic literally doesn't make any of sense

No, it still makes sense. You're just don't accept that contradictions are only accepted to be false because the systemic logic everyone uses axiomatically assumes it to be so.

There are a great number of logical systems you can build that do not assume the same rules of internal validity.

Besides, there isn't even a contradiction implied in the position that there exists an omnipotent entity that can make a statement simultaneously true, false, and blue. That's just how impossible things become possible through the expansion of potential space, happens all the time.

>>1578778

t. Zeno

for real though, seems you can't empirically prove otherwise.

God is literally the best and most parsimonious explanation for the existence of temporal space.

Deal with it.

>>1578792

There would also be an infinite number of days in the past, and we would have never reach today.

Imagine there's a woman and she says "after I finish counting all of my roses I'm going to open a flower shop." If she only had 100 roses she could open that shop up very quickly. If she had a billion roses it would take a long time but she would eventually get to the point of opening the shop. If she had an infinite number of roses the shop would never open.

>>1578806
It's an illogical assumption without evidence. You might as well just abandon rationality altogether.

>>1578811
Rationalize this

*unzips dick*

>>1578811

>evidence
>logical

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction

>>1578806
No, it's not.

>>1578809
>If she had an infinite number of roses the shop would never open.

She would if she had an infinite amount of time to do it in cause lol limits.

File: 1418552727838.jpg (6KB, 150x251px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 150x251px

>>1578818
Everything except cogito ergo sum is dependent on irrational assumptions.

>>1578827

No she would still be counting for eternity. The infinites aren't going to cancel each other out.

>>1578793
> No, it still makes sense.
It totally isn't. You can say things like god doesn't exist but he cause of the Universe anyway... How this is even possible? He is omnipotent, therefore any absurd shit is possible and at this point there remains zero possibility for formal analysis or the whatever prove you could try to push. Basically, it is useless to prove omnipotent God from logic, he doesn't adhere to it anyway. Even if it is blue that such a God even exist.

>>1578820

the meatbag that exists within the same system he assumes to know the origin of must clearly have a better explanation for it's origin based off his meatbag senses than literally almighty God.

>>1578809
Except no. It's not about finishing counting the roses, nor did she ever start counting the roses, if we make the assumption that the universe has existed for eternity. She has simply been counting them forever, will count them forever and we're just in the here and now.

>>1578806
> It's magic!
> I explained everything.
Wow, you are such a bro with your explanations.

>>1578828

Not if God has anything to say about it.

[spoiler]he does[/spoiler]

>>1578846

But consider the shop opening to be "today" or present time. If there were an infinite number of days before today than we never could have reached the present.

so does god exist or what?

ffs tbqh

>>1578844
I don't see what my biological composition has to do with this argument. In any case, you're in my same exact position, so I don't know what are you even trying to say here.

>>1578862
Yes.

>>1578862
no

File: 4d6.gif (10KB, 600x694px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 600x694px

>>1578759
> Then what caused the universe to exist?
Yeah... Who could cause it? Could there be an answer...

>>1578862
Maybe

>>1578862
Maybe

>>1578836
>You can say things like god doesn't exist but he cause of the Universe anyway

I could, but I didn't.

>He is omnipotent, therefore any absurd shit is possible and at this point

Yes, in fact this seems to be a fairly important point. God is in fact so powerful that he can stop being God, and then become God again.

Think about the implications of this quality for a while.

>it is useless to prove omnipotent God from logic

Yup utterly, doesn't mean you can't though. Cause he can both adhere to logical form and deviate from it and then do both at the same time by virtue of his divine mystery (this truth statement brought to you by Catholicism).

>>1578862
Could you repeat the question?

>>1578866
>>1578867
>>1578869
>>1578870

I DONT KNOW

CAN YOU REPEAT THE QUESTION

>>1578861
Except that the days keep moving on and will eventually reach today, no matter how long it takes.

File: LwbYulF.jpg (54KB, 501x504px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 501x504px

>>1578868
>>1578759
we all know the answer to this one...

>>1578875
> I could, but I didn't.
Well, I can say that if you have no balls to believe in truly omnipotent God who can influence worlds while being non-existent. This is my core believe.

>>1578489
hur dur im retarded

>>1578862
No, I'm sorry.
But pizza exists, if that makes you feel better.

The kalam cosmological argument uses philisophical and scientific evidence to demostrate the non-religious truth that the universe began to exist from nothing. Then the argument joins that evidence with the philosophical truth "Whatever begins to exist has a cause for its existence." It follows logically from these two known truths that a cause brought the universe into existence. The cause of space and time cannot be bound by those things, so the first cause must have the properties of eternal, immaterial existence.

God provides the best explanation. If you're going to dismiss it you should at the very least provide an alternative explanation for the universes existence.

>>1578880

no dude, there are literally an infinite number of them

there is no eventually forever until God literally just SHUT IT DOWN

>>1578907

>>1578506

>>1578934

So? Use your words.

File: aqinas.jpg (2MB, 2700x6826px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2700x6826px

Here is the updated version of that picture where athiest arguments are BTFOd

>>1578953
"From start to finish, the kalam cosmological argument is predicated upon the A-Theory of time. On a B-Theory of time, the universe does not in fact come into being or become actual at the Big Bang; it just exists tenselessly as a four-dimensional space-time block that is finitely extended in the earlier than direction. If time is tenseless, then the universe never really comes into being, and, therefore, the quest for a cause of its coming into being is misconceived."

File: Hard Question.jpg (10KB, 300x299px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 300x299px

> "Whatever begins to exist has a cause for its existence."
> Totally undeniable philosophical truth. Believe me, guys!
> "Whatever exist must began to exist at some point"
> Nah, totally irrelevant piece of the information. Let's just ignore this...

>>1578785
>this would mean an infinite amount of water
>so you cant divide the water into cups you guys
>because there would be too much water to put into one cup

>>1578977

You can't divide infinite.

>>1578960
> If I present retarded counter arguments, people would believe in our Jewish fairy tales.

File: WylieBeckert_RamseyTheory_1K.jpg (351KB, 1000x560px) Image search: [Google]

351KB, 1000x560px

>>1578985
You can, it isn't even that hard if you know maths.

>>1578985

Well you can, but you just get two infinities that have only the infinite set of one delimited half of the original infinite sequence.

>>1578960
>4 retards badly versed in Aristotelian physics engage in an irrelevant debate

This is neat I guess

>>1578989
Its not a proof for Christianity. If anything people seem to reject it off hand just because it opens the possibility of it.

>>1579013
Why dont you demonstrate why they are bad, likewise the question of God and reason is hardly an irrelevant one

>>1578985
You can count infinitely high. You can just keep counting. Recognizing the segments of infinity does not devalue infinity

>call thing that isnt god god
>god exists gaiz

>>1578533
So where did it come from? You're explaining how it behaves, not its origin, you dumb fuck.

>How do motor vehicles come into existence?
>The vehicle propulsion is provided by an engine or motor, usually by an internal combustion engine, or an electric motor, or some combination of the two, such as hybrid electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids, obviously
You're not answering the question, dipshit

>>1578536
The big bang is not the beginning. It is a stage in its existence.

>>1578536
>Scientists call this "heat death". If the universe were eternal than it would have already happened.

For fucks sake the Heat Death Paradox is not compatible with Big Bang Cosmology

>>1579063
>>1578960
Why don't you read the thread and argue instead of being lazy and just posting some shitty argument

>>1578985
0.444444444444444... / 2

0.222222222222222...

>>1578985
There are infinite natural numbers. Divide them to two and you get infinite odd numbers and infinite even numbers. Infinity divided by any positive real number is simply infinity.

>>1578503
That's retarded. It's like saying that some universal law like gravity never began to exist so it doesn't exist. Similarly, this means any "universe is eternal" argument automatically means the universe never existed.

>>1578478
>Evolution means that we're descendant from chimpanzees
>no two chimpanzees had sex & made a human
>therefore not descendant
That's basically what you said. Aquinas himself didn't say that everything has a cause.

Can anyone answer why something needs to begin to exist to exist? I find it illogical. It sounds to me like saying that everything came from something previous & no rules are set in stone.

File: Painting_of_David_Hume.jpg (218KB, 461x567px) Image search: [Google]

218KB, 461x567px

>With the "discovery" of the Big Bang we now have scientific proof on top of the philosophical that the universe isn't eternal so it must have a cause outside of the universe that explains itself. Current science only reinforces the argument.
>mfw christcucks actually believe this

I really hope you weren't serious OP. If you were, I can tell you that you only have a basic understanding of the subject you're discussing

>>1582324
I should note that Hume himself made a few poor arguments. He ain't perfect.

>>1578518
>And why can't the universe have always existed?
Has no one here read Aristotle & Aquinas? Some of the earlier arguments don't even dispute that. Seriously, the "finite universe" version of the argument is actually more modern.

>>1582358

I don't even need Hume to tear apart this Kalam and unmoved mover bullshit, the fallibility of human knowledge will already do that for me

>>1578626
Funny thing, many of these arguments don't even being with a definition of what "God" is. If anything, their definition of God is closer to a conclusion of what they deduced than assumed at first.

>>1582367
Explain this part please

"Did I show you the particular causes of each individual in a collection of twenty particles of matter, I should think it very unreasonable, should you afterwards ask me, what was the cause of the whole twenty. This is sufficiently explained in explaining the cause of the parts."

I'm questioning if it makes a fallacy of composition or not.

>>1578478
Everything must have a cause. Therefore God should exist. That's a non sequitur if I've ever seen one. The idea of God cannot be proven like this, because it implies you already believed in god a priori. A decent way should be to say "let's find out about this cause".
It's like the arguments for the existance of a soul, they all rely on the pre existing conviction in the existance of a soul. That's not how proofs work.

>>1582443
>Everything must have a cause. Therefore God should exist.
I'm going to add that this isn't even the argument that Aquinas made. He himself called bullshit on "Everything has a cause".

>>1582367
>the fallibility of human knowledge will already do that for me
I'm starting to question if this computer I'm writing this on exists or not.

>>1578431
>By faith alone do we hold ... that the world did not always exist
Always a good start to a theory

>Change means conversion from potential to actual
This is exceedingly ill defined, but we can roll with it for now

>A potential cannot do anything because it is not actual, potentials cannot make themselves actual
Excellent. We now observe that every single spontaneous event (such as particle decay or the collapse of a quantum superposition) violates this element of the argument. Modern physics quite happily renders this statement false simply by observation and experimentation.

All points that follow from this are thus flawed. But let's keep going anyway.

>Something that is actual has to actualise a potential
There is no reason this statement must be true

>This forms a chain of dependence
Once again, spontaneous events can tell this argument to get fucked

>Each member is inert without the next member in place
Again, spontaneous events

>This chain cannot be infinitely long
This presents a poor argument, I can quite happily define the length of the chain to include the duration of each of the "actual" objects and happily preserve all of the above definitions (and flaws). But manages to redefine this statement such that it is a disproof of an immortal and infinite god. So no, this section has been crafted only to omit this final possibility.

>Chain must have a head
Spontaneity tells this one to go fuck itself.

>Head must be purely actual
Word play doesnt help here except to try and obfuscate that this implies that any head with this property is unchanging at every level. We follow this with the notions of what "arises" from "purely actual" objects. The argument for omnipotence can also be an argument for the complete inability to act; any object with no unrealised potentials cannot be able to do anything. Similarly it can be argued that it is utterly ignorant of everything, that it must be purely physical and unchanging.

>>1582625
>spontaneous spontaneous spontaneous
That's what I got from this

>>1582657
Congratulations, you're not actually engaging with the argument then.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_polarization
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_decay
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function_collapse

There you go, anything else?

>>1582657
Yeah, do you have something to dismiss spontaneity?

>>1582697
You nuts mate? What definitions of spontaneous you working with for one.

>>1582675
>>1582774
Already posted, you appear to be blind.

>>1582675
What is there to engage with? Some people don't even know what "spontaneous" means nor how shit works.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_process

If a car is propelled by its engine, is it inside or outside? If there is an imbalance which the atom is trying to correct, we can say there's some inside causes. They don't decay just because. They decay because some atoms aren't so stable.

>>1578431
I dont think I agree with randomly seperating things into actual and potential.
if cold air interacts with water, then water becomes ice and the cold air becomes warm air.
Both entities interact with each other and change their current shape. what makes the air actual and the water potential?
you could just as well argue that cold air is potentially warm air

>>1582791
This bugger here is nuts. He can't even get his definitions right. Spontaneous is like if I drop a ball, it rolls down a ramp with no further influence from myself, even though gravity acts on it.

>>1582697
Alright I'll explain what spontaneous means in physics.

It means NO NEED FOR AN OUTSIDE PROCESS but, IT DOESN'T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT INTERNAL. I think the example at >>1582846 is good enough. Someone lets go of a ball. The ball's gravitational potential energy becomes kinetic energy. This is a process that needs no outside energy because the gravitational potential energy in the ball is all that's needed. It doesn't violate conservation of energy or anything like that. It doesn't "create" energy but rather converts potential to kinetic (& heat, sound, etc). A diamond becomes graphite over many years because of pressure & temperature yet that's considered to be spontaneous because such a system didn't need any outside energy to function.

>2016
>atheists still using their non-argument
>hurrr God has to follow physical laws and muh logic and muh casualty a bloo bloo
He is omnipotent and doesn't fucking care, can't be subjected into our infinitely primitive laws we figured out by gazing at the sky

>>1582910
This is something I agree with. Why do people argue that something like God is in any constrained by physical laws? The problem is that we're dealing with something we have no clue if X or Y is applicable to. It's like if some criticizes a soccer player for not following basketball rules in a soccer game, it's a non-argument because the rules in question aren't applicable.

OP, how do you know that doesn't prove a different notion of the divine? If the universe were pantheistic for instance, it being self-caused would be entirely fitting.

>>1582910
>>1582927
If it can't follow laws we can't understand, and we can't observe its existence, then why are we even discussing it? There's no possible way we could ever know or understand such a thing, so why bother?

>>1582950
I'm not discussing anything, I am making fun of atheist """reasoning"""
I am an agnostic theist

>>1582910
>>atheists still using their non-argument

And which one would that be? That when you claim something about reality, you need to justify it with evidence?

>>1582950
>There's no possible way we could ever know or understand such a thing, so why bother?
Looks like we have an agnostic here. Many things we have no clue of knowing. Many of the sciences have postulates & assumptions which we can't prove. We speculate but we have no clue of 100% knowing. Didn't Hume say something bout how impossible it is to take a finite number of facts & say something about something infinite?

>>1582957
so you're just posting a strawman and acting smug about it?

Good for you I guess

>I am an agnostic theist

Congratulations

>>1582959
I understand you suffer from ADD but please put some effort into reading entire messages on the Internet before responding
you fucking retard

>>1582942

>expecting christcucks to actually justify their claims instead of just forcing them down your throats and using le hat maymay if people protest

>>1582959
>evidence
Where is Hume where we need him? Evidence can be interpreted in plenty of ways & can be reexamined if there's a problem.

>>1582972

And I understand that you have zero justifications for your christcuckery and now resort to ad hominems

>>1582977
nice assumptions about my beliefs

>>1582964
I'm a philosophical taoist/pantheist. The former serving as a fundamental principle for the latter, much like a creekbed guiding the creek that goes through it.

My reasoning is simple: if anything can truly be said to be divine, it would be the universe. As far as we know, it's self-caused, its basic underpinnings violate our understanding of causality, and it contains within it all things.

But to try to understand a god as you propose would be a snipe hunt.

>>1582988

They're not assumptions, you demonstrate yourself that have fuck all to offer aside from namecalling

>>1582977
>ad hominems
Oh fuck, you hit one of my triggers.

An ad hominem isn't just an insult. "Fuck you" isn't an ad hominem. An ad hominem is claiming something is true or false because someone is an idiot or another negative adjective. If I say "You're an idiot because you're wrong", this isn't that fallacy because the "you're an idiot" part isn't the justification for a point, the opposite in fact. If I say "You're wrong because you're an idiot", it is an ad hominem because the "you're an idiot" is my justification for my point. Logical fallacies are common errors in reasoning. "Fuck you" or whatever isn't any A -> B or anything like such.

>>1582989
>As far as we know, it's self-caused
Or uncaused.

>>1583006
nice more assumptions, primitive

>>1583017
In either case, that's an attribute that would seem very fitting to me of something divine.

>>1578609
By some models alot of weird shit can start happening if the universe gets old enough

>>1582989
>As far as we know, it's self-caused, its basic underpinnings violate our understanding of causality, and it contains within it all things.
After the multiverse shit I've seen others spew, I question that.

>>1583039
boltzman brain maaan

>>1578489
Are you an "eternal beings" expert?

>>1583032
Then I question what's the problem. I find myself defending this cosmological argument because people who often try to refute it don't understand it. If someone does a bad job of debunking "1 + 1 = 3", I call them out regardless.

Whats a good book for laymen that covers scientific cosmology and the contemporary theories (preferably with a range rather than one guy peddling his views)?

The subject is fascinating but I don't fancy studying to post-grad physics tbqh

>>1578517
First of all that the universe will not contract.

Secondly it is not closed - it's open.

Thirdly the dark matter constant is spread everywhere yea? Well the space because of its increasing number is accelerating in expansion.

4TH Point - if string theory has some grain of truth in it - mathematically it was already proven that in time space-time would rip itself.

>>1583062
Not that guy but every definition of eternal I found says something like "without beginning or end" or "always there".

>>1578609
Not that guy, but we really don't know enough of the basic underpinnings to be making any definitive claims for what's going to happen to the universe in its eventuality. It's currently expanding at an accelerated rate, but until we understand shit like dark matter, or actually have a decent understanding of the four fundamental forces, it's all just speculation.

if only some basic occultism, hermeticism was taught in schools instead of women's studies
atheists and their lazy way of reasoning wouldn't fucking exist

>>1583080
I think there's not a human on this planet that doesn't know what eternal means.

But it's a word you can use and mean nothing just like God.

>>1583080
not that guy but every dictionary I've read has multiple definitions of eternal including (a common one) "infinite in duration" which does not necessitate no beggining

>>1583104
Irrelevant, "eternal being" means a "being" which follows the definition of "eternal". It doesn't matter what it is, just being one implies a few things.

>>1583130
"eternal boner"

means a boner which follows the definition of eternal. It doesn't matter what it is, just being rock solid implies a few things.

>>1583190
>eternal boner

If someone's erection is perpetually & always that way, I have to question how hard life must be.

>>1578750
>you need at least to began to exist to exist
>you need
Begging the motherfucking question, numbnutz. You're saying "There are no eternal beings because being itself implies finitude."
lrn to argue.

>>1583256
>I have to question how hard life must be
He answered this already, it's rock solid.
>>1578431
Anyway, a huge amount of people seem to be misunderstanding what the actual argument is here.
It basically boils down to, "What happens if you follow the chain of events we see unfolding around us back as far as possible?". The last link in that line is the concept that Aquinas is referring to. He makes a lot of assumptions about the properties of that concept, but to say that a first cause couldn't exist seems illogical. People also seem stuck on how that cause has to be some type of sentient entity, but that is an assumption derived from the concept and not one preapplied to it.
To ask what the origin of whatever is represented by that concept was would defeat the whole purpose of the exercise. Anything that could have an origin would not meet the definition of 'The first thing in the chain of events', and therefore would not even be the topic of discussion.

>>1583405
>it's rock solid
I don't have a witty reply to this one.

>>1583405
That's the problem I have with many who discuss this argument. Many don't seem to understand it. Aquinas more or less reasons that there would be a first cause & then proceeds to then reason that the first cause must be an unchanging, all capable, eternal thing. It doesn't even explicitly say "Christian God".

>>1578479
Atheists and such usually just shit in Christianity rather than attempting to disprove an actual deity

>>1583595
inb4 they flip out about disproving stuff or muh burden of proof

>>1578517
If a universe is below critical density then it will continue to expand forever, hence it could never contract into a singularity again

>>1583085

Agreed.

We can still work from simultaneous assumption though.

>>1582942
>If the universe were pantheistic

damn, that thought sure did come out wrong.

Pantheism is the position that everything in nature is literally divine.

See Spinoza for details.

>>1583672
I never got the burden of proof shifting. As a moral relativist when it comes to human morals, I find any X god is evil complaints to be more or less baseless. Whenever I ask what grounds does any deity have to obey whatever they consider good, I never get a satisfactory answer. There's always that queer assumption that gods are somehow obligated to follow our moral standards rather than whatever they set up themselves.

>>1583672
>muh burden of proof

prefixing something with "muh" does not refute it

>>1578478
Aquinas addresses this in Summa Theologica.

If everything needs a cause, at one point you're going to have a 'causeless origin,' are you not? i.e. if something created the universe, and something created the former, then that which created first and was not created would be God.

>>1583745
People don't understand evil. They think of it as some substance that can be quantified rather than a label that people apply to things that the perceive as effecting them negatively. They don't understand how easy it is to apply the label of 'evil' onto things that only appear to be that way to them.

Imagine a native to some island that has no idea about Western medicine. He gets overheard complaining about some stomach problem by a visiting doctor. The doctor inspects the man, and determines that he has a tumor attached to his stomach that needs to be removed or he will die. When the man is informed that he will have to have his stomach cut open for the procedure, he immediately refuses. The doctor tells this to the village elder, who, having experience with western medicine, has the man forceably held down so the growth can be removed. The villager goes away from this incident thinking both the doctor and the elder are evil people because of what they put him through. He doesn't understand how serious his condition was, so he didn't know why it was necessary.

Really, a deity could only truly be deserving of the title evil if he was actively perusing our suffering, and, considering that we are assuming the deity is all powerful, the fact that everyone isn't suffering is proof that isn't the case.

>>1578431

Under this very same system of metaphysics living things do actualize their own potentials. It is precisely this that distinguishes the living from the inert. And it is precisely this attribute which allows Aristotle to argue for the unmoved mover. Only a thought or a desire can cause a motion without an outside impetus, therefore the cause of motion is some sort of universal mind.

Its not a fundamentally a temporal argument at all.

>take something that isnt god, and then call it god
>hey guys god exists, i proved it
>i could have called it anything else except god, but i didnt
>because god died for you and shit and is three people and heretics will burn and i proved no logical connective between the thing i called god and the god described in the bible because the reason why i called it god instead of literally any other wold like primatomoventiusprincipalia was so i could conflate this concept with the god in the bible

>>1583791
>Hurr look at me, I have preconceived notions about what a God should be, and since this doesn't fit within that narrow band and, more importantly, since I have no arguments prepared against it, IT CAN'T BE GOD.
>Also Christianity sucks because reasons, even though no one has said shit about it.

>>1578450
Deists can't use his argument. Aquinas' God could do all the things the RCC (or Islam or whatever) says He did as Divine Will, its just not provable from pure reason. Diest demiurge can only create physical reality. Someone who accepted the God of the 5 proofs is closer to Julian the Apostate than a 1700s Deist

>>1583779
I agree. I find the "Why does God do X" to be basically the equivalent of "MOMMY! WHY CAN'T I HAVE ONE?" as though mommy has any need to do obey her kid like it's the law. I think it only makes sense if the pecking order demands that gods serve man, a downright selfish & unreasonable demand in my opinion. I don't know how many religious folk preach that God has some strange obligation to be humanity's bitch despite the omnipotent powers.

Similarly, I keep on asking them "What if my moral code says something like murder or rape is good? Do you have to follow that moral code? No? Then why should any gods need to follow it or yours for that matter?". If I were any god, I wouldn't even bother trying to satisfy humanity's many & sometimes contradictory morals. I find it to be astonishingly prideful & selfish to treat divinity as though they are obligated to follow our moral codes. It's basically saying "My Morals > God's Morals" & by extension "My Morals > Everyone elses' Morals" by implicitly claiming moral superiority & objectivity over a supposed almighty figure.

I can never understand people & I doubt I ever will.

>>1583772
>at one point you're going to have a 'causeless origin,' are you not?
Does something other than intuition say that this should be so? What if human intuition is inherently flawed?

>>1578503
Because God is the ground of existence. God is categorically distinct from something that could be created

>>1578518
You are thinking of prime mover is chronological terms, something Thomas never did. What causes the self-feeding loop to exist?

>>1583915
>What if human intuition is inherently flawed?
This would undermine plenty of how we think.

>>1583938
Welcome to my world.

>>1582324
>Be Hume
>Have shitty hat
>Imagine a better hat poofing into existence
>It doesn't
>Still imagined it though
>Aristotle defeated

>>1583911
I agree with almost everything you are saying except for moral relativity. Morals are only relative until you set a goal for them to achieve. At that point, there exists a theoretical optimal set of rules to live by in order to achieve those goals, and that set of rules would, not accounting for biology, be consistent throughout this universe.

>>1583915
>What if human intuition is inherently flawed?
Then God help us.

>>1578431
>With the "discovery" of the Big Bang we now have scientific proof on top of the philosophical that the universe isn't eternal so it must have a cause outside of the universe that explains itself

Not true. The big bang is the creation of the universes current shape, not the universe itself.

Energy cannot be created or destroyed. The universe is therefore eternal, its just not necessarily always the same shape.

>>1583969
Of course. I acknowledge that the existence of an absolute authority on morality would definitely make said authority the most moral & all. If there is a specific "go that way" from said arbiter, any other path would be an incorrect one & protesting against it would be ridiculous & folly. If there is an objective morality, I'd say it'd be in some divine figure or authority who is by definition absolutely moral.

>>1584003
I get that conservation of mass & energy hasn't been shown to be wrong but I doubt we've proved there are no exceptions either.

>>1584010
I'm not arguing for an ultimate morality that would necessarily have to come from some divine figure personally. It could simply be a result of the type of universe that an individual is living in.
Ours, for instance, seems to greatly reward cooperation. No matter what task you are performing, it is almost always easier to do with the right type of help. Consequentially, if your goal in life is to perform some task of your own choosing well, then your morality aught to include rules that help you cooperate with others. Those rules would be very similar for every single person with that goal in the universe.
It is a contradiction to both want to kill someone and cooperate with them, for instance. Therefore, any optimal moral code that values cooperation would include a stipulation over killing someone who isn't a threat to you.

>>1584070
Well its a law.

>>1584070
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction
And we never will.

>>1578431

>With the "discovery" of the Big Bang we now have scientific proof on top of the philosophical that the universe isn't eternal

I think you misunderstand the big bang. The matter was there before the big bang, it's just it's state was different. All matter existed within space the size of an atom.

>so it must have a cause outside of the universe that explains itself.

False dichotomy

>Current science only reinforces the argument.

No it doesn't

>Are there any real objections to this or are atheists just being close minded?

Yes there are real objections to this theory because your understanding of the big bang is very limited. I would suggest you read a bit more on the subject.

>>1584156
>Matter
Don't say matter, because that almost certainly isn't true. Say contents. everything that exists already existed, but not in its current state.

>>1584156
but then who cause matter????!!!?????

>>1584100
>No matter what task you are performing, it is almost always easier to do with the right type of help. Consequentially, if your goal in life is to perform some task of your own choosing well, then your morality aught to include rules that help you cooperate with others. Those rules would be very similar for every single person with that goal in the universe.
I see. So you argue that the objective morality for some folks are on a "best steps to achieving goal" basis? I can get that. I think that some fellows might value things differently though. Some might enjoy backstabbing people & maybe some hedonist might consider their own pleasure to be worth harming others or otherwise screwing over people for.
>Therefore, any optimal moral code that values cooperation would include a stipulation over killing someone who isn't a threat to you.
I guess optimal in a "best for everyone" sense but I've seen some sociopath wankers who care too much for themselves & too little for others in my opinion. Our world does seem to reward cooperation but I find it a bit subjective if some consider those rewards to be good or not. I've seen some really selfish people. I guess I've seen too many crazy folk.

>>1584181
No one necessarily. Spooky I know.

>>1584124
That's the thing. We have our assumptions & shit like that. We may never prove that the world is rational & correctly observable by people or not but much of science relies on it.

The Kalam argument is retarded because it uses special pleading.

If you're going to argue that God isn't a part of the causal chain, then anyone can argue that the universe isn't a part of the causal chain either, and you have literally explained nothing.

>>1584179

>Don't say matter, because that almost certainly isn't true.

Can you link me to a paper on that? Everytime I here it talked about they use the term matter.

Why wouldn't it be matter?

What would give it it's weight?

>>1584196
>some hedonist might consider their own pleasure to be worth harming others
I would argue that, if the hedonist's goal is to experience the most pleasure possible in their life, then even they would be better off cooperating with others to achieve that goal, because other people with conflicting goals will cause an end to their pleasure if they don't. It's much harder to do a line of coke on a roller-coaster while in jail.

>>1584209
Our understanding of the universe has one major thing going for it; Like Apple products, it just werks.

>>1584241
>I'm gonna debunk a 2.5 thousand year argument with a shitpost on a Mongolian snail trading forum

If you follow the logic chain then god, a godlike entity, or simply a universe shitting cloud is the final answer

>>1584270
>If you follow the logic chain then god, a godlike entity

It really doesn't. I mean, you still need to explain how a god isn't a part of the logic chain at all, because if god existed prior to the creation of the universe, it means that time also must have existed because he existed to observe it.

And if time existed, there must've been a point in time where he was not there to observe it, hence he is also a part of any logic chain you can conjure up.

>>1584258
Because matter can be created and destroyed, because matter is an energy construct.

>>1584241
Why do so many name fallacies that they don't get?

Special pleading is an unjustified exception to a rule. In this circumstance, most of the cosmological arguments argue for a First Cause because they imply the alternative is an endless regression. Because they think an endless regression is impossible, they think there is in fact a first. Here they've somewhat justified it, two options & one is, to their knowledge, impossible. Therefore there can only be one. If they've committed a fallacy, it wouldn't be this one given the massive amounts of work they devote explaining shit. They don't even say "Oh but God is an exception", they say "A first cause or endless regression, I'd much rather go with the former because...".
>>1584269
>It's much harder to do a line of coke on a roller-coaster while in jail.
I don't doubt that but I've seen some really weird fellows. Some might consider being someone's prison bitch a good thing or enjoy the thrills from doing something illegal. I hope they're rare.

>>1584311
>because if god existed prior to the creation of the universe, it means that time also must have existed because he existed to observe it
Explain further, how would a being some argue to be beyond time be constrained by time?

vid related explains it pretty well

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewxmv2tyeRs

>>1584320
>some argue

They don't argue it, they simply posit it. Sort of like how they posit that god isn't a part of the logical chain, because magic.

>>1584336
>They don't argue it, they simply posit it
Did you read the cosmological argument? Plenty of what people say "they just pose" they don't actually do. The "beyond time" is closer to one of their conclusions than assumptions.

>>1584317
>Some might consider being someone's prison bitch a good thing or enjoy the thrills from doing something illegal
Remember that, no one and nothing is forcing people to make those theoretical optimal choices, and people might not even be aware of their existence.
I'm sure there was a thousand choices that I made incorrectly today without even realizing it, all of which would have been better for reaching my life goals than the choice I did make. We are imperfect creatures with imperfect information who make imperfect decisions.

>>1584336
see
>>1583405
Because you are making the same mistake as everyone else was.

>>1584342
Yeah but it's just a clever rhetorical trick.

>Everything that *begins* to exist has a cause.
>But God didn't begin to exist so he doesn't have a cause because I say so :^)
>Checkmate atheists.

>>1584313

Should I have used "mass?" I think that's what I was getting confused with?

>>1584351
Of course. I understand. I fuck up all the time.

>>1584352
>But God didn't begin to exist so he doesn't have a cause because I say so :^)
This part right here is unjustified. Not only is "God didn't begin to exist" somewhat justified but they don't even say "God", they say First Cause.

>>1584370
>they say First Cause.

Yeah, but that's just semantics, because we all know what they want it to mean is a creator deity.

>>1584388
I don't. When I say first cause, I mean a universe shitting cloud.
What is your argument against that? Not that you have presented any actual arguments, only personal bias..

>>1584402
>I mean a universe shitting cloud.

But where is this "universe shitting cloud" from?

I don't see how this helps.

>>1584420
You are ignoring the entire premise again. The whole fucking topic of the discussion is 'The first thing in the chain of events'. Anything that isn't the first thing in the chain of events is not what we are talking about.
When I propose to you that the first thing in the chain of events is a universe shitting cloud, you asking me where it came from is nonsensical. The whole point was to conceptualize something that doesn't have an origin in order to solve the problem of infinite regression.

How could the first thing in the chain of events have something that comes before it? Wouldn't that make it not the first thing, and therefore, not what we are talking about?

This really isn't as hard as you are making it out to be.

>>1578431
I don't object to the idea of god, but I will object to the idea of religion. Sure it's rather a symptom to human stupidity rather than its cause, but if it's denounced enough than at least some of semi-inteligent people can be persuaded to abandon it and move to a higher stage of intelect.

>>1584508
>if it's denounced enough than at least some of semi-inteligent people can be persuaded to abandon it and move to a higher stage of intelect
In my opinion, people should address trilbys as trilbys. I think Michael Jackson wore one well though.

>>1578431
>Something that is purely actual, with no unrealized potentials, must be omnipotent. To not Be able to do something is to have an unrealized potential.
If it existed before/outside the universe and therefore potential, then it no unrealized potential because it had no potential at all. Meaning rather that this omnipotence would be identical to impotance.

>As the grounding of all true propositions, it would not have knowledge but rather be knowledge itself. To lack knowledge is to have unrealized potential.

okay, so ignoring my last point which is also nullifies this one. This would mean that this pure actual would have to be the universe itself, therefore being all knowledge. However being knowledge is not omniscience, omniscience would be a sentience which knew all knowledge. And there's nothing here to suggest that the universe as a whole is sentient, and plenty to suggest it isn't. Therefore this actual is not God.

>Physical substances can change location, form, ect, all of which are unrealized potentials. So something purely actual must be non-physical.
Correct, in essence it would not be physical, it would be what the physical is made of.

>A flaw or imperfection is a potentiality, and something purely actual would not have any imperfections and so would be perfect.

To be completely perfect, this actual would also have to contain every possible perceived imperfection also, because otherwise it would have the potential to be imperfect. Therefore it could not have the agency to judge as a whole, and would only be perfect as a whole. Therefore it could not be God.

>Something purely actual cannot come into or go out of being, as these would be unrealized potentials. Thus it would be eternal.
Can't see any obvious flaws that don't repeat what I've already said.

Anyone see any flaws in my reasoning?

>>1584592
>Meaning rather that this omnipotence would be identical to impotance.
>However being knowledge is not omniscience, omniscience would be a sentience which knew all knowledge
>this actual would also have to contain every possible perceived imperfection

You are getting ever closer, but I feel I can't appropriately put in to words anything that would help you. I apologize for my shortcoming.

>>1584801
Ever closer to what though?

>>1584817
Just an epiphany that I had several months ago. Again, I don't trust my ability to communicate the idea well enough to state it, and wouldn't want to risk biasing you towards it trying to.
I really shouldn't have said anything.

What exactly is wrong with infinite regression?

>>1584852

The answer is in the OP's picture. AN infinite number of inert members cannot do anything. A train an infinite number of boxcars can't move, it needs an engine.

>>1584852
>What exactly is wrong with infinite regression?
>It's turtles all the way down

> it needs an engine
But prime mover is okay because you like totally can create an energy from nothing, right?

File: 76.png (1MB, 1103x2915px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1103x2915px

>>1584852

I found a pretty good paper that explains why it isn't possible.

>>1583772
> at one point you're going to have a 'causeless origin,' are you not?
You aren't going to have causeless origin because everything needs a cause. If you have a causeless origin than, obviously, not everything need a cause and you can say that universe just happened to be and it wouldn't be a contradiction whatsoever.

>>1584878
That is the entire thing that makes it at all significant, yes. Anything that was moved can not, by definition, be the prime mover.

>>1582910
> God is beyond logic laws
> I can prove that with logic
Theists are the one who retarded here. Why even prove anything at this point? Just say that believe is absurd claims without any reason to be honest with everyone here.

>>1584311
>>1584320
I just want to let you guys in on something. Your thinking of time the wrong way round, that isn't what time is.

Time is related to gravity. This has been proven, the more gravity the more time. If you want time to slow down you go to a massive source of gravity. Therefore more time makes time slow down.

You are imagining that in a place without time nothing would happen, when logically, in a place without time, everything would be happening at once.

Though I'm not sure such a place could exist.

>>1584923
They have to because he would have to have power over the universe. They have to prove a connection or he might as well not exist.

>>1583920
> God is categorically distinct from something that could be created
This is bullshit of highest caliber, omnipotent God could have any quality of any object so he literally indistinguishable from anything that he created. It is very simple logic grounded in reality of divinities.

>>1584900
The only significant thing here is double standards against some physical principles but not the other.

>>1584964

I don't know if you're a theist or not isn't correct. God can't go against his own nature, which is why questions like "Can god create an object so heavy that even he can't lift?" or "Can god create a 4 sided triangle?" are nonsensical. An eternal being by definition cannot be created.

>>1584976
>physical principles
You are already incorrect. You are assuming the existence of physical principles before the existence of the prime mover, so you aren't even talking about what we are talking about.
Try again.

>>1584939
You can't prove connection if God beyond logic, it is like trying to capture omnipotent criminal, there is no possible alibi or incriminating evidence here. If God forces you to rape children, you are fucked if he wants that. He can rewrite an entire universe to hide your crime, if he wish so. There is no way to connect God to anything or at least something.

>>1578450
>Aquinas argues in favor of a generic God
Eh no, the questions begged upon the presuppositions of the argument demand the Doctrinal Christian God.
Allah is uncaring and a Deist God is little more than a machine.
The Christian God fulfills the perquisites of consciousness, awareness, power, will, morality, and purpose. Which if Aquinas' proof is correct is the basis of the proof(s).
You are incorrect, Muslims and Deists can not appeal to Aquinas' proof(s) nor the Kalaam in its refined form.
Emphasis on "refined".

>>1584985
That doesn't refute anything he said

>>1584999

Where do you get this idea that god is beyond logic?

>>1578478
Does God begin?
No, its an implied derivative from the first premises, what are you 14?

>>1584985
> God can't go against his own nature
Yes, he can. He is omnipotent, that mean he isn't limited by anything, including his own nature. This is pretty clear case.

>>1584999
God is logic, and his creations, consequently, adhere to it.

>>1585013

If that's the case than do you believe that god can create an object so heavy that even he can't lift? You should really think about the implications of your answer.

>>1584990
Why we should assume existence of prime mover that doesn't even seen anywhere before assuming physical principles that are well defined or proven?

>>1585005
Some people in this thread claim so.

>>1585019
Yes, why it is a such a problem? We never seen something like that happened, but this is fault of our logical mind that couldn't really experience a contradictions like that directly.

>>1585032

If there existed a stone that god could not lift, then he's not omnipotent. A better answer would be that god cannot do anything that goes against his own nature.

>>1585022
If you believe that physical principles are the original origin of all things, then that's fine. You still believe in an origin of all things. Your 'prime mover' would be those principles.
Many would have problems with that though.

>>1585042
Being not omnipotent is one of potential possibilities for omnipotent being.

>>1585032
We worked out using logic that things like black holes were a possibility long before we actually spotted one.

And they are pretty well outside Plato's cave if you know what I mean.

>>1585042
>A better answer would be that god cannot do anything that goes against his own nature
A more modern way of saying this is that God chooses to avoid contradictions, and, our fragile minds being what they are, we should thank him for that.

>>1585057
Not as a whole it isn't.

>>1585019
>do you believe that god can create an object so heavy that even he can't lift

Yes.

In fact he can do that, lift it, still have created a rock so heavy he can't lift it, and then double lift it.

Omnipotence is not bound by the rules of the temporal sphere, or by any constructed logical system. Neither is it necessarily unbound from those systems.

It is ultimate and reality warping power, to put it lightly.

>>1585057

That's like saying an infinite being could have a beginning or an end.

>>1585070

Every day I'm amazed at the silly shit I read here.

>>1584999

>There is no way to connect God to anything or at least something.

There's nothing to keep God from just showing you everything. It just seems to be his decision not to that you take issue with.

Omnipotence is a hell of a drug man.

>>1585070
Sorry anon to spoil your little semantic fantasy story, but if he could lift the rock then he hasn't created a rock he is unable to lift.

>>1585090

I'm sorry your logical system cannot cope with the necessity of the impossible anon.

>>1585104
Have fun with your mad little semantic games anon.

>hur dur if God said the wall was red, would it still be blue? wooo wooo necessity of the impossible wooo wooo

File: aXm6587xjU.jpg (66KB, 650x650px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 650x650px

>>1585051
> You still believe in an origin of all things.
There is no point to believe in it. What does origin of all things solve? This is a final answer, you can stop think now, just go home? Our history always proved that there could be reason behind anything that thought as being basic and elemental. I can't see any reason to deny all of the human thoughts and epistemological experience just to draw limit, that never should be crossed. Personally, I more, than okay with infinite regression where humanity could understand the world better and better with every step to another turtle. The search for a first cause, prime mover or things like that, seems to be driven by fear of living in the world of unknown where you doesn't know what you can even know.

>>1585085
Yes, but it could be as well be a totally realistic illusion that doesn't prove anything and lies to you.

>>1585104
>you idiots, God can be proven as a logical necessesitiy, why are you so willfully blind?
>you idiots, why are you trying to examine God with logic, you don't understand anything?

>>1585141

>it could be as well be a totally realistic illusion that doesn't prove anything and lies to you

so what?

Besides, literally everything could be a totally realistic illusion if God wanted it to be. How could you tell the difference?

>>1585142

I only said *your* logic is insufficient for the task.

That said, if God wanted to he could make it impossible for anybody to dwell upon his nature with anything close to accuracy. So it's ultimately a moot point.

Not all theists agree you know.

>>1585185
> How could you tell the difference?
You can't, you are right. Anyway, if you exclude a some sort of God openly connecting himself to be responsible for something, limited being have zero chance here. Maybe, God can or a mortal with the help of one, but without cooperation from Him, you are fucked here.

>>1585128
I'm sorry if I have trouble replying to you, but it's hard for me to parse what you are trying to say.
>There is no point to believe in it. What does origin of all things solve?
It solves the logical problem of infinite regression, which there has been many posts made to explain.

>This is a final answer, you can stop think now, just go home? Our history always proved that there could be reason behind anything that thought as being basic and elemental. I can't see any reason to deny all of the human thoughts and epistemological experience just to draw limit, that never should be crossed. Personally, I more, than okay with infinite regression where humanity could understand the world better and better with every step to another turtle.

Well, the good news is that there is nothing about the existence of an infinite entity that would limit the dept our understanding can go, and would, in fact, imply that we, as finite beings, may never be able to reach it. We certainly won't in our life time. You don't have to worry about us running out of things to discover, and this isn't so much drawing a line as setting an infinitely high theoretical goal for us to reach.
.
>The search for a first cause, prime mover or things like that, seems to be driven by fear of living in the world of unknown where you doesn't know what you can even know.

Well, considering that I believe that I would have to live in a world where many things are unknown to me regardless of whether or not I theorize a prime mover, that isn't case.

>>1584895

>A beginningless series of events is impossible

>needs a cause

I don't understand the language here. Why does an infinite universe need a cause?

>>1585251
Because, even if an infinite universe always existed, it would need something to put it into motion. Without that something, be it some type of primordial physical laws or some entity, it would be unchanging.

File: aXm3063xjU.jpg (93KB, 650x650px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 650x650px

>>1585212
What exactly is a problem with infinite regression? In practice, our knowledge isn't pyramid, based on some set of axioms, but more like system of facts or some kind of network of relations between truth. In practice, we always search for more reasons for basic things to exist, to do what they to and trying to explain how they works. Basically, nobody ever going to stop thinking about what if there exist the some cause behind God even if you prove him, as Prime Mover, or whatever. Nobody stopped after a discovery of atoms, electrons or quarks and so on. Logical chain that is based on first cause just isn't how world is and structural problems with it, being finite or infinite are problems of our logic being the discrete with the claims and inadequate to reality. Trying to ad how inadequate logic by claiming the existence of being of speculative qualities at best could be seen as pure insanity. Instead of search for the prime cause or the claims of near absolute importance, we should firstly heavily check, if our logic with all of the metaphysical claims are truly adequate enough not only to be the universal, but even to step beyond universe itself. Which seems to not be the reason here. No matter how you try, you just can't solve the problem without doing the baseless extra ordinary claims, ignoring a known philosophical facts or play cheap linguistic tricks.

>>1585277
Why can't motion exist, you know, eternally? You can't really destroy motions. Why do you need to start it?

>>1585277

But the assumption is made that the universe before the big bang is unchanging.

There is always movement, just that a certain set of movements caused the big bang, maybe?

That's just a suggestion from some idiot (me) you are responding with on the internet.

To say it is impossible is close minded. We don't understand our surroundings well enough to make informed decisions. To play it out as "God did it!" is not only narrow-minded but, doesn't help answer the question.

>>1578506
I've brought up b-theory on threads like this several times. It's always ignored.

>>1585334
What the fuck is bee theory of time?

>>1585277
energy? Maybe energy alone is so unstable that it gives birth to everything else as a stabilizing effect.

There's also quantum mechanics mumbo jumbo that plays a role.

>>1583815
Why would you use a per-existing word to describe it? It's like if I invented a VR headset, and called it a book, because you can kind of read with it so they're sort of related.

>>1585334
Craigcucks aren't familiar with it, because it's not talked about in the YouTube debates they get their philosophy from.

>>1585342
It just the argument that time doesn't 'flow' from the past to the future through the present, but that each segment of time statically and permanently exists independently. The illusion of the 'flow' of time occurs primarily because we can remember and anticipate things, but recall and anticipation are things that occur strictly in the present. You never actually experience the 'past' or 'future'.

What happens in our universe is that entropy (the arrangement pattern of order to disorder) causes us to intuitively believe that this order to disorder is flowing from one particular end to the other. The notion that the 'future' flows into the 'past' is equally valid in every measurable sense. In other words, neither end of the universe's time axis is objectively the beginning and the other the end. The meaning behing future and past is ultimately just like what 'left' and 'right' mean. They're just arbitrary names given to opposing directions in a dimension.

>>1585440
That sounds an awful lot like how God sees all of time in a single glance.

>>1578431
"Potential" is literally just a made up idea. That's not to say it's never useful but you can't use it to prove something exists, you're just playing word games. Also, the deduction of all the omni-properties is when the argument goes full retard.

>>1585293
I wonder if anyone's questioning what energy is made of & not tiny units of energy.

>>1585633

>"Potential" is literally just a made up idea.

Are all ideas made up?

>you can't use it to prove something exists

What's the difference between actual existence and potential existence?

>>1585770
> Are all ideas made up?
True ideas come from the platonic realm of ideal forms.

>>1585791

is truth an idea?

File: 93993.jpg (59KB, 411x563px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 411x563px

>theories reliant on eternal substances

>>1584895
>Out right deniel
Dropped.

>>1578879
YOU'RE NOT THE BOSS OF ME NOW

>>1578431

I'm not an atheist, but the big bang might not be localized.

I mean its possible there were more than one big bangs. Its just we are limited to our observable universe.

>>1578478

It exists because it does and always had. I've always explained the root of God as being logic itself. If it was logical for logic not to exist, it would still exist, because that position would be logical. Call it what you like, but to me, this is the Divine Spark, the One Truth.

>>1578560

If the universe continually expands and contracts, what is inside the space outside of it? It must have space into which it can expand, right?

>>1586286
no

>>1585706
Energy is not made of anything. Everything is made out of energy. If it was made of something it would be creatable and destructible, which it isn't.

(Or at least this is our current understanding)

>>1585836
No

>>1578431
I don't think the argument sufficiently proves a conscious supernatural being.

>>1587131

Well that settles it. PACK IT UP EVERYONE.

https://orthosphere.wordpress.com/2013/03/04/the-argument-from-truth/