>mfw an athiest thinks there's actually any argument

He didn't prove God. He only showed that there has to be some point where logic starts.

There's a huge leap from that to deism, and there's an even bigger leap from that to theism, let alone Christianity.

File: Steve-091113--01.jpg (36KB, 620x372px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 620x372px

>>2340437
>this is what athiests think a refutation is

Don't talk about the Summa unless you've actually fucking read it

>>2340438
How about you try to correct the anon then? Do you know how conversation works?

>>2340438
This is not an argument faggot. Actually argue against what I said or fuck off.

>>2340439
>>2340440
So fucking what? Is this an argument? No.

Neither of you have disproved Aquinas so I'm still right.

>>2340436
kys

None of the five ways are sound arguments

File: ys.jpg (20KB, 615x344px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 615x344px

>>2340443
actually refute one then

>faith
>arguments

Way to expose yourself, idiot

>>2340444
Well aren't you a dumb dummy dum dum, huh? Huh?

>>2340436
I'm a theist, but I haven't read Aquinas. What is the proof that he uses?

Atheists are literally getting BTFO on /lit/ right now.

>>2340447
1) God by nature
2) Thus by Nature, God

>>2340448
do we just have the shit theists on /his/ then?

>>2340449
>circular logic

More like he proved panpsychism.

>>2340441
>>2340440

You're not still right, you're claiming Aquinas is right but haven't actually explained why.

>>2340444
The second way for instance doesn't get off the ground unless we can find examples of things that "come into existence". I see no reason to accept any premises about the nature of things coming into existence, as we have never observed an example of something coming into existence.

Any "object" or "thing" which appears to have come into existence is composed of material substance, but it is known empirically that the material substance that composes this object or thing was there to begin with. So actually nothing has come into existence, we've just seen pre-existing material be reorganized.

Secondly, it's not impossible for a chain of causes to go on to infinity.

>>2340441
the burden of proof is on you for making claims such as

>>>mfw an athiest thinks there's actually any argument against God when Aquinas literally fucking proved God in the Summa

Newton blew the fuck out of Aquinas.

>>2340526

not him, but i imagine the problem with that is "where did matter come from then?"

>>2340578
Nowhere. It always existed.

File: 1475770718589.jpg (174KB, 1000x929px) Image search: [Google]

174KB, 1000x929px

>>2340587
Sorry, but that isn't how spirituality works. Matter starts and ends with God, everything that exists is a literal result of a relative thought process of God. This is compared to you thinking of something and have it existing, God is the relation of your soul and body relating to itself if you will. Without it, your willpower is nothing.

File: 1402825279883.jpg (87KB, 750x499px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 750x499px

>>2340602

sorry, but that's not an argument

>>2340578
I don't think I have to have an answer to that question, and I can criticize people who claim to have an answer to that question by saying that they have no real basis for their answer. Why should I or anyone else have to attempt an answer at a question about the details of something we don't even know occurred (in this case, the genesis of matter)?

>>2340622

>stumped
>i don't have to answer that

ok. aquinas wins

>>2340602
We're dealing with the tangible. Spirituality doesn't come into play. This is non-sequiturial word salad.

>I can't explain how something happened so that means god did it
What an excellent argument.

>>2340637
What I've said is the case. Everything that exists materially is fundamentally likened to a 'thought process' for God. All physical objects are essentially in God's realm.

>>2340644
>All physical objects are essentially in God's dream.

ftfy

>>2340644
Word
fucking
salad
All you've done is baselessly assert your position. Provide an argument please.

>>2340644

proofs?

>>2340602

spirit doesn't exist

>>2340699
call it whatever you want
will exists.

>>2340711
There's no reason to seperate will from body.

>>2340711
Okay, let's start from here.
>Will exists.
Define "will", specifically in reference to matter. What role does "will" play in matter, and what would we see if this were not the case?

>>2340716
>>2340721
It is the will of grass to do the will of cattle to do the will of farmers to do the will of slaughterhouses to do the will of money to do the will of consumers to do the will of their belly which fertilizes the grass.

>>2340695
>>2340683
Have you read The Holy Bible?

Hoe about the Koran?

The Tao Te Ching?

If anything, a simple glean from any of these texts will tell you not only is God real, but he has performed acts on this very Earth to make it clear to the people thst he is real. To walk around claiming that only 'some religions' exist or only 'some truths' are relevant to your understanding is what you want. You want a lab or scientific result proving that God exists, but if God did that there would be no point in faith, the game would be over. Let me put it this way, if you had read any of these texts you would know that proofs come to each individual in their lives. They can either ignore the proofs of God, or not ignore the proofs of God. You are tried at the end of your life for two things

1) What have you done on this Earth
2) Did your ground yourself saliently in God?

>>2340778
Have you read LOTR?

How about Harry Potter?

The Discworld series?

If anything, a simple glean from any of these texts will tell you not only are wizards real, but they have performed acts on this very Earth to make it clear to the people thst they are real.

>>2340789

>it's a "stubborn reductionist conceptualizes all religion using the same retarded logic as a religious fundamentalist would and then has the gall to criticism religious fundamentalists" episode

Fuck off back to where you came f/r/om

>>2340805
Slow your roll there, sparky. I am making fun of him because he's using religious texts as evidence of god's existence. A book proves absolutely nothing. Anyone can write anything down, and many cult leaders have proved that people will believe anything if it's presented in the right way, so a book having a following means nothing as well.

>believers even considering arguments

Why try to argue with a close-minded person?

>>2340778
>>2340789
rekt

>>2340729
So in this case, we are taking "will" not as a mental process, but whichever actions the subject in question is taking. Okay. But, then, if it is the "will" of grass to be fed upon by cattle, why do they contain secondary compounds designed to deter herbivore. that the cow must overcome in order to feed?

>>2340778
I don't believe the Tao te Ching describes miraculous acts.

>>2340821
The problem my friend is that science is particularly falsifiable. We have thought of the idea of a geocentric universe for thousands of years and this was proven wrong. You acting like there's no evidence for a deluge or lack of evolution is bullshit. There is. On top of that, there's even evidence that perception effects reality. Clearly willpower, centered in God, the creator means something.

What's more remarkable is you ignore one simple fact. That progress in science has direction. And if you want to find the absence of God in your reality, like Darwin, you will find it. People are driven to prove things. If you are God's creation, you will be sent to hell for obeying a direct line of scientific knowledge without thinking of the spiritual implications. Life is a trial.

People have proofs. Yours have been presented to you, this much I know. It is the same for all.

>>2340866
It does describe a flood.

>>2340870
>You acting like there's no evidence for a deluge or lack of evolution is bullshit.
What evidence is there for the worldwide flood? What evidence is there that evolution is broadly-speaking incorrect?

>>2340436
You cant even prove Aristotelian metaphysics so how are you going to prove something based on them?

>>2340438
ironically your response isn't logical refutation.

>>2340887
It has already been presented multiple times. It's the reason intellectuals like Ken Ham or Jordan Peterson still exist, because they believe in the idea of God and the truth of his word. You are an idiot, and are ignoring whats staring at you right in the face.

>>2340901
That isn't an answer. What evidence is there? Be specific.

>>2340887
Earth covered in layers of dried mud.

Fossil record; mud settling and killing creatures living on the bottom of the ocean, perfectly preserving their skeletons in a quick death, again dried in layers of hardened mud.

Sedimentary rock. Sediment. Flood.

No major river delta on earth has more accumulated silt than would be expected after a worldwide flood about 4600 years ago.

It's not the evidence that's lacking; it's your biased worldview that can't make sense of the evidence.

>>2340907
Every ancient civilization writes of a global flood. It was an ELE. People pay attention to ELEs.

>>2340901
>worshiping a Jew and his magic dad

File: 1466204053678.jpg (132KB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

132KB, 640x360px

>>2340901
>It's the reason intellectuals like Ken Ham

>>2340914
You're right. I must go to my local church at once. You've convinced me of the existence of God and his son Jesus. Good job.

>>2340937
You must go to Jesus on bended knee.

>>2340729
???

>>2340578
well shit, i guess it must have been yahwey

>>2340805
that's not an argument

>>2340914
>Earth covered in layers of dried mud.
Yes, because various parts of the earth have been at one point or another in an environment encouraging mud deposition. This is a fairly common depositional environment and there are only so many types of sediment (especially when you're as non-specific as "mud" without mentioning grainsizes or structures). You would have to prove that these layers were deposited at the same time,

>Fossil record; mud settling and killing creatures living on the bottom of the ocean, perfectly preserving their skeletons in a quick death, again dried in layers of hardened mud.
The nature of all fossils requires burial at or near the time of death, and again mud is common in all deep-water environments today, without any global flood. For example, turbidity currents off of the continental shelf act like underwater mudslides, and deposit a lot of sediment (including mud) very quickly in an environment where organisms live. Again, you would need to show some specific timeframe where this was occurring much more than usual, and worldwide, and only to organisms living in the one timeframe.

>Sedimentary rock. Sediment. Flood.
I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Sediment is deposited by processes aside from flooding, such as wind in the desert, and we ought to see specific worldwide erosional structures if the flood was really worldwide and sudden. (No, that's not how the Grand Canyon formed.)

>No major river delta on earth has more accumulated silt than would be expected after a worldwide flood about 4600 years ago.
I doubt the figure, but yes, erosion and lithification is common, and deltas cycle/water follows a path of less resistance when sediment accumulates, rather than emptying into the same one constantly.

>>2340922
And every ancient civilization also lived near or with access to fresh running water, and the structures that provide it have the tendency to flood. These were catastrophic events for each individual civilization, which were later mythologized into something greater, the way the raid on Troy was expanded into the epic cycle. We would need to see specific evidence of a sudden, worldwide flood to see these as anything other than stories.

>>2340979
You see the truth through your naturalist and empiricism blacked out glasses.

If you were a curious person, you would look at the explosion of Mt. St. Helen's in the 1980's and see how that one explosion (there were thousands related to the Flood) created stratified sedimentary rock in a matter of months.

It's easy to see they were deposited at the same time. They're smooth and fit together perfectly. No burrow holes, no marring, nothing but smooth dried layers of mud, some of which have polystrate fossils protruding through more than a dozen layers. A fact your worldview has to ignore, while mine does not.

The timeframe, worldwide, was about 4600 years ago, not coincidentally the age of the oldest tree on earth that has actually been aged via tree rings, and not carbon dating.

Global Flood ---> global sediment.

No accumulated silt is more than 4600 years worth, anywhere on earth. The exact time of the Flood.

>>2341000
Sea creatures fossilized in the Flood are found on the tops of mountains.

>>2341000

You will not see what your mind cannot accept.

You will not see what you do not want to see.

>>2341013
Thats because the earths crust expands and contracts as plate push against each other. So parts of what was the sea floor get pushed up into mountains

>>2341009
You really shouldn't get your scientific knowledge from AnswersInGenesis.

>>2340870
> We have thought of the idea of a geocentric universe for thousands of years and this was proven wrong.
this common line of reasoning used to dismiss science is dogshit. you can hold doubts, but to simply dismiss the evidence that's used to support modern scientific theory (specifically evolution) without providing any contradictory evidence shows how fucking deluded you are.
>You acting like there's no evidence for a deluge
wew lad. maybe you'd like to present us with some of this evidence? bonus points if it isn't something that's been debunked countless times.
>or lack of evolution is bullshit.
an organism which is better suited to survival will live longer, and therefore have more offspring. mutations in the genetic code cause new variation in organisms. over large periods of time, these factors cause speciation. all of this is supported by the fossil record. what parts of this do you disagree with?
>there's even evidence that perception effects reality.
your perception is reality dog.
>Clearly willpower, centered in God, the creator means something.
that's not clear at all. you can't just say "it's clear that x" and expect people to go with it. you have to demonstrate that your premise is true.
>if you want to find the absence of God in your reality, like Darwin, you will find it.
this means literally nothing, and does nothing to strengthen your point, as it is equally applicaple in the reverse. if you want to have a god, you'll find a reason to believe. also darwin was a christian. simpleton.
>If you are God's creation, you will be sent to hell for obeying a direct line of scientific knowledge without thinking of the spiritual implications.
firstly, you've yet to even demonstrate that there is such a thing as a spirit. secondly, fuck your god if he wants me to burn for being a reasonable person and disbelieving the unbelievable.
>People have proofs.
no they don't. as evidenced by how you've yet to give a shred of proof to support your position.

>>2340447
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Ways_(Aquinas)

1. Everything changes. All change is caused by something else. But it's impossible to list a cause for every change, that leads to infinite regression. So there must be something that is able to cause change without needed to be changed itself. That is God.

2. Similar to 1. Everything has a cause. You can trace back to chain of cause and effect right back to the beginning of the universe. But you can't have infinite regression so there must have been a very first cause in the chain of cause and effect. That is God.

3. All things that exist can theoretically also not exist. Since we do exist there must be a necessary being whose existence is contingent on nothing else. That is God.

4. Everything is on a continuum from 'most' to 'least'. We know some people are 'more good' and some people are 'less good' so there must be an ultimate standard of goodness that all else is judged against. That is God.

5. Things behave as if they have a purpose. All things have a 'final cause' that is, the purpose of their existence, they will naturally move towards accomplishing that cause during their existence, even if it is inanimate matter which seeks to clump with other inanimate matter and form objects. Something must have set that purpose into their very nature. That is God.

It all derives from Aristotelian philosophy, so you probably need to do a bit of reading on 'acts' and 'potentials' before it really clicks. From the perspective of the Aristotelian school of thought all the arguments make logical sense

I miss Corrie

>>2340526
>The second way for instance doesn't get off the ground unless we can find examples of things that "come into existence"
The universe. That was easy.

>Secondly, it's not impossible for a chain of causes to go on to infinity.
It actually is. Infinite regress is impossible. If it was possible we wouldn't be here.

>>2341009
>created stratified sedimentary rock in a matter of months.
Yes, volcanoes are incredibly useful in sedimentology for this specific reason, because they allow you to coordinate the fact that a given layer was deposited all at once, despite whatever other deformation occurred. But as far as I'm aware, volcanism did not precede the flood, so unfortunately this is not relevant.

>A fact your worldview has to ignore, while mine does not.
No I don't. Layers of can be disturbed and mixed very easily, especially if they are both unconsolidated and waterlogged. Flame structures are a well known example of this. Even lithified sedimentary rock can be disturbed by organisms that can create boreholes. These can be useful indicators of what direction was "up" during deposition, so I'm not sure why you believe they are ignored. Regardless, you still need to show how it can be proven that globally mud was deposited at the same time, by the same process, rather than the many processes we see today depositing mud occurring in many places across space and time.

>Global Flood ---> global sediment.
But then the same, continuous layer should be present everywhere. Where is it?

>The timeframe, worldwide, was about 4600 years ago, not coincidentally the age of the oldest tree on earth that has actually been aged via tree rings, and not carbon dating.
Carbon dating is calibrated using tree rings, and is only useful for a limited number of half lives. Further than that other dating methods like Potassium 40 are used, so I'm not sure I see your point.

>No accumulated silt is more than 4600 years worth, anywhere on earth.
If I'm understanding your objection, you want a process to deposit into the same basin for 5000 years, without erosion, without stopping or changing environments?

>>2341014
That is not evidence.

>>2341062
"No."

>>2341046
>All change is caused by something else.
Radioactive nuclei decay without an external trigger.

File: smug_doubt.png (194KB, 948x498px) Image search: [Google]

194KB, 948x498px

>>2341046
Except it rests on nonsensical and entirely subjective axioms and an aspect that is ultimately opinionative (particularly #5), and begs the question what is more perfect?

Plus, by this same logic, the perfect pizza must exist (even if God 'can't be known')- which is silly enough, but also begs the question - a perfect pizza by whose opinion?

It also assumes there is some instance of "true nothing" in existence, rather than it being a mere mental concept, and that causality is absolutely inviolable, both of which, as we know today, don't seem to be the case.

Even without the observations to contradict it, basic kindergarten logic, Descartes, and well, just about every other philosopher since Aquinas slammed this into the ground. Indeed, it was really just a perversion of Anselm's idea, which was well already disproved by other Christian philosophers well before then.

>>2341081
In Aristotelian theory the decay would be a 'power' of the radioactive nucleus and the change would be a result of that substance exerting it's power.

>>2341046
>But it's impossible to list a cause for every change
it's impossible for a human perhaps.
>So there must be something that is able to cause change without needed to be changed itself.
non sequitur. there's no inherent need for a beginning point.
>Everything has a cause.
are all of these just baseless, unprovable assertions? how can you know that everything has a cause?
>But you can't have infinite regression
why not?
>so there must have been a very first cause in the chain of cause and effect. That is God.
what if the first cause was completley inanimate? how can you call such a thing "god?"
>Since we do exist there must be a necessary being whose existence is contingent on nothing else.
no there musn't. our existence is not first predicated on the existence of some higher being. that's nonsense.
>We know some people are 'more good' and some people are 'less good'
no we don't. morality is a subjective human construct.
>so there must be an ultimate standard of goodness that all else is judged against. That is God.
why must the ultimate standard of goodness be god? why is god inherently good? what if god is really a right mean bastard? more baseless nonsense.
>Things behave as if they have a purpose.
no they don't. what is the purpose of an a comet flying alone through space?
> Something must have set that purpose into their very nature.
it's a pretty big leap to go from "things have a purpose" (which is already begging the question) to "that purpose id derived from god."

so in conclusion, fuck off with this utter tripe. it's not like i'm the first person to debunk this horseshit, and you know it.

>>2341081
What formed the nuclei? (I mean, ultimately, yeah, but try harder.)

File: 1486242322669.jpg (43KB, 446x456px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 446x456px

>>2340778
>>2340789
Damn though.

>>2341113
see
>>2340957

>>2341091
>and that causality is absolutely inviolable, both of which, as we know today, don't seem to be the case
Causality is inviolable. Things in the universe can be perceived to happen at different times, even different locations, but the original cause of those things is always perceived the same by all parties. Causality is the reason light can only travel the speed it does, it's the fundamental underpinning law of reality.

>>2341046
This shit refutes itself. I can't believe this is heralded as the peak of theology.

>>2341121
There's a few more steps involved before you gotta resort to that.

>>2341112
>why not?
Because then there are an infinite number of events before you occurred. We're talking hard infinite here, the infinite of infinities, the infinite that contains all other infinities. Now think about it, if you regress back an infinite amount of time to track back all these cause and effects then try to go back to where you are, how much time has to pass before you exist? Infinite. If an infinite amount of time has to pass before you exist you will NEVER exist. Therefore your existence is predicated on the fact that there hasn't been an infinite amount of time and it can indeed be traced back to an original cause.

>>2341110
Why did it exert its "power" at time x instead of time y?

>>2341113
The moment and energy exchanges of protons and neutrons, but that doesn't solve the problem of observed and uncaused causes. Again, what was the trigger for one nuclei to decay right now and its neighbor to decay millions of years from now, despite them being otherwise identical?

>>2341126
You probably can't actually refute any of it though. People in the thread are trying their best and falling flat, mostly because they don't understand the implications. There are people trying to argue they don't exist to prove it wrong, for example.

>>2341046
All of these require existing belief in a supreme diety to make sense. As another who hasn't read Aquinas, this gives the impression he's working backwards; tailoring his data to match a favored conclusion.

>>2341122
Even if we don't know with certainty (and probably can't), all three major cosmological models predict causal violations, so no:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1401.0167v1.pdf
...and they've been right so far about all the other unimaginable things we thought must be prevented by some yet-unknown mechanism, but nonetheless turned out to exist (such as black holes), so odds are pretty good that it happens, which is enough to toss into the pot to spoil philosophical certainty, at least.

>>2341142
>Why did it exert its "power" at time x instead of time y
Because that is it's 'nature'. The way things behave is fundamentally tied to the way things are.

>>2341145
>everything is contingent except for god because I say so

File: History-of-Philosophy.jpg (2MB, 900x6474px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 900x6474px

>>2341126
>I can't believe this is heralded as the peak of theology.
It isn't, even other Catholic philosophers hundreds of years dead have quashed it.

It is a notable hallmark in the evolution of primitive philosophy though. I mean, we still learn about Zeno's paradoxes and Empedocle's elements, despite the fact they are long resolved and abandoned.

>>2341150
So is the "nature" of every single example of a particular species of radioactive nuclei different? We can assign a half-life overall to some particular species, but for all of the nuclei to decay at different times (and perfectly randomly distributed across said time) implies different natures. So where is this nature?

>>2341147
You need to remember that the way we model the quantum world does not match how it is in reality. Particles are not literally waves of probability in reality, that's just how we model them to make sense of how they behave in reality.

>>2341168
By a series of laws that lead to conclusions predicting behavior which we observe - which also applies GR and the SGR your GPS runs on, which also predicts such violations. So, your point?

>>2341141
Shoot me with the arrow, Xeno. Infinite "events" or "moments" doesn't mean infinite time had to pass.

>>2341176
>So, your point
The point is they are only models, they are not reality. A ball being thrown in a perfect simulation of reality behaves like a ball in reality, but it is still not reality. The reality we experience is fundamentally different than the reality we can model and this is mainly because science only accounts for that quantitative, not qualitative. Things that cannot be measured or mathematically modelled fall through Sciences net because it isn't interested in anything that cannot be measured. Therefore it can't ever give us anywhere near a complete view of the reality we live in since we know by experience there are quantitative aspects to reality.

>>2341160
You can always view philosophy in some ways as a decay in thought, only if viewed from the aspect that popularized philosophers deny the existence of God. The former philosophy of accepting God and grounding your spirit in him is beautiful. God is obviously real, to say that the popularized notion of an agnostic philosopher was better than, say, Thomas Aquinas or Kierkegaard is just wrong. The arguments presented therein are life affirming, and enhancing even.

>>2341141
>Never studied convergence.

File: 1484699465231.png (202KB, 374x345px) Image search: [Google]

202KB, 374x345px

>it's a schizophrenic hijacks the thread and people try to reason with him episode

>>2341191
Why can the origin and evolution of the universe not be measured?

>>2341141
alright, cool. we have a total of one justification for aquinas' reasoning. you're still ignoring second argument i made against the second principle.
>>2341145
>You probably can't actually refute any of it though.
i refuted all of it, from multiple different angles. you were only able to take issue with one point i made, a point which was altogether unnecessary to the whole of my argument.

>>2341194
>The arguments presented therein are life affirming, and enhancing even.
While that is very nice, life affirming does not imply accurate. What evidence is there for this "obviously real" God? We've dismissed both the Flood and Aquinas, so we need something new.

>>2341206
It can, in part. Only the aspects that CAN be measured though. The ones that can't fall through sciences cracks, but again we know from personal experience that things that cannot be measured are just as meaningful as the aspects of our reality that can be measured. So while making predictions about how physical phenomena work is very useful to us in the creation of new tools, it's not a very good way of describing the reality we live in

It just looks like religion won, I mean the proofs were posted, evidence was put up, no one had a suitable argument or rebuttal.

It just goes to show you, retarded atheists are going to burn in hell for being too stupid to comprehend the logical proofs of God's existence. God designed you to be dumb.

>>2341221
>It can, in part.
What portion of the origin and evolution of the universe are inaccessible to science? Would this "hole" be perceived?

>>2341224
refute
>>2341112
...
i'll wait

File: gyUP71b.jpg (49KB, 500x667px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 500x667px

>>2341224
r u fuckin srs nigger

>>2341229
There are some who theorize scientific understanding can only go so far. If you are going to observe the thing, fine. Then it is observed. It's physically there.

But if you're going to theorize about the past based on how things LOOK, it's certifiably insane. Consider yourself like Xerxes of Persia, when meeting the Dardanelles, whips the water and curses God for destroying his bridge. We all know how he met his end.

>>2341229
Qualitative aspects of existence

>>2341221
Can you give me a few examples of things that are meaningful, but cannot be measured?

File: very_good-however.jpg (51KB, 660x350px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 660x350px

>>2341191
I'm treading a treacherous path when I say this, but I agree, a complete understanding of objective reality is likely humanly impossible, as mathematical logic is the most finite reasoning we are capable of.

>Pause for pic related.

Those mathematical physical models work for predicting things. The device you are currently using works based on those predictions. And they have correctly predicted things that are utterly unintuitive otherwise, like time moving differently here than in orbit, or the existence singularities that can't even be fathomed of mathematically (beyond saying "yup, that's a singularity"). So when those same theories tell you that, under certain extreme circumstances, causal violations are possible, there's good chance, mind boggling as the entire concept is, like all those other mind boggling concepts they predicted but previously disbelieved, it is indeed a thing.

>>2341245
Subjective experiences. Just the thing every human being who has ever existed bases their personal reality on, no biggie. Things only known to your consciousness, the feel of wind in your hair, sun on your skin. What it feels like to love. Things like that.

>>2341238
>But if you're going to theorize about the past based on how things LOOK, it's certifiably insane.
There is coal in Antarctica. Coal can only form from swamps. Is it reasonable to assume that the climate experienced by the rocks we now call Antarctica was different in the past, or is this certifiably insane?

>>2341240
What qualitative aspects of existence are involved in the origin and evolution of the universe?

>>2341256
>causal violations are possible
As far as I know causality has never been violated and that there has been speculation that there are 'inbuilt' facets of the cosmos that prevent causality violations. You can send back data via quantum mechanics, but you can't send back meaningful information, nothing that can be made sense of until you have the 'key', which preserves causality.

>>2341229
Well, actually, you can't mathematically theorize about anything before the first plank time under the current models, even if some folks are fiddling with that.

I mean, yeah, you can give a good explanation for the origins of the universe through science, but there are nonetheless limits to science.

>>2341046
Could one not easily replace "That is God" with "That is Shaq" with the logic intact?

File: Stirner 2.jpg (47KB, 501x525px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 501x525px

>>2340438

>avatarfagging as steve mcdonald of all people

>>2341267
Like everything else, they should break down under certain circumstances (>>2341122) - that is what the theories predict, and they've been right about everything else our minds have reeled against. No, we ain't seen it - but nor could we, at least not through any method we are currently capable of.

>>2341270
And once the limit was the resolution of lenses. We know our current models are limited, which is specifically why we are working to improve them.

I don't doubt there are practical limits to science across whatever lifespan and resource pool humanity as a whole has available to it. But these practical limits are very different from fundamental limits that "must" be filled in with the supernatural.

>>2341263
>What qualitative aspects of existence are involved in the origin and evolution of the universe?
Impossible to know since qualitative aspects of existence are only able to be experienced by the mind of the individual. This is why I'm emphasizing the difference between ACTUAL reality, and MODELLED reality through mathematics. Quantitative models are important, but it's important to remember that the reality we see through the lens of our consciousness is NOT the reality that is modelled via mathematics since there are aspects of reality we can only experience in our own mind, no less real than anything else.

Bertrand Russel said:

>It is not always realized how exceedingly abstract is the information theoretical physics has to give. It lays down certain fundamental equations which enable it to deal wit with the logical structure of events, while leaving it completely unknown what the intrinsic character of the events that have the structure. All that physics gives us is certain equations giving abstract properties of their changes. But on what it is that changes, and what it changes to and from. On this, physics is silent.

>>2341224
Mad as fuck

>>2341314
>Impossible to know
So, then, should we not at least perceive the holes in our understanding? Should we not model the flight of a ball and it ends up landing somewhere other than predicted, because of the unquantifiable power of love?

The reality we perceive in our brains is an extremely distorted version of the reality that exists. It's important to us, of course, but not a useful way of understanding actual reality. While modeled reality is also distorted, it is nowhere nearly as distorted as the one intuitively understood and perceived. The feeling of a breeze against your skin does not hold the nucleus together. You cannot harmonize quantum physics and special relativity with what it feels like to fall in love. The subjective unquantifiable aspects of life do not seem to have anything to do with the origin and formation of the universe.

>>2340436
I think it can be said that there are no arguments for a God revealed by revelation, except for articles based upon faith.

>>2341230
>>2341235
Okay. But I haven't read Thomas Aquinas. Then again, neither have you, so I guess we're even. I've got some Kierkegaard and Nietzsche under my belt, and only one of these is really life affirming. I may be using some Arithmetical reasoning as well, because God is evident through that harmonious proof.
>But it's impossible to list a cause for every change
it's impossible for a human perhaps.
>this is no argument it is a child's temper tantrum. You are angry because the infinity of the causes and effects happening in the universe cannot be completely materialized in a formalized system of physical logic and equations. The world moves according as God wills it, and this is the reason for the unnatural movements in the world seen down to the molecular level. It is God's will.
>So there must be something that is able to cause change without needed to be changed itself.
non sequitur. there's no inherent need for a beginning point.
>If you have infinity behind you, that makes no sense. There inherent finiteness of the universe is literally what caused physicists to debate the cause of the origin of it, you moron. There must be an initial cause, even from an atheistic perspective.
>Everything has a cause.
are all of these just baseless, unprovable assertions? how can you know that everything has a cause?
>why should it not? how else would it come into being?
>But you can't have infinite regression
See above
>so there must have been a very first cause in the chain of cause and effect. That is God.
what if the first cause was completley inanimate? how can you call such a thing "god?"

>because even if it were inanimate, which is unlikely, the universe exists as it does thanks to this cause. Evolution, there is proof, does not exist the way you think it does. Perhaps artificial selection, but in no way does natural selection take place. Darwin is utilizing a case of statistical extrapolation to the extreme.
>Since we do exist there must be a necessary being whose existence is contingent on nothing else.
no there musn't. our existence is not first predicated on the existence of some higher being. that's nonsense.
>You missed the first part of Aquinas' proof. There are things that do exist, and by definition, things that do not exist. If there is an ultimate cause, that necessitates through the laws of predestination and causality that everything is intended as it is turning out by an ultimate creator.

>>2341354
>We know some people are 'more good' and some people are 'less good'
no we don't. morality is a subjective human construct.
>And this, you'll find. I'll agree with you on. I think the inherent banality of a lot of moral choices in the past are based on the logical fallacy that people are inherently 'good' or 'bad'. I think there is a constant war within us all, and that to lose hope in people is pointless. However, that being said, satan has certain holds on certain people that will never fade, or will only fade with severe resistance for God. Because of this fact I will admit, there are people who are more prone to sin than others. They will certainly be the ones on the lower end of the scale at judgment. They will go to hell.

>>2341354
>Evolution, there is proof, does not exist the way you think it does. Perhaps artificial selection, but in no way does natural selection take place. Darwin is utilizing a case of statistical extrapolation to the extreme.
What is this proof? Be specific, and also explain why selection pressures determined by humans "work" while selection pressures determined by the environment do not.

>so there must be an ultimate standard of goodness that all else is judged against. That is God.
why must the ultimate standard of goodness be god? why is god inherently good? what if god is really a right mean bastard? more baseless nonsense.
>In Platonism, the individual is inside a cave. The only things he can contemplate are how to remove his suffering. He sees shadows on the cave wall. He knows that things move. But he doesn't exactly know the specifics of these things. When he removes himself from his chains, he discovers all that was moving around him was designed to move around him, keep him occupied in his cave. The people moved the puppets in front of the fire because they had to, they were forced. Outside of the cave, the light is blinding.

On the lower end of the search for desire comes the desire to remove discomfort like hunger, or shelter. At the upper end of the platonic scale comes contemplating forms, atq the very top though is a fundamental idea. Something that was related to the sun in the allegory of the cave. The Good. The one that provides light and illuminates the earth. When a little kid learns about the cave allegory, he technically doesn't learn it this way, and that's because he learns it from a bastardized secular education system, The Good is tantamount to the highest there is. Logically, none could this be but God. Your ramblings are trying to elude this fact.

It can all be an allegory for human civilization coming out of their collective cave and realizing it was the sun who provides them warmth during the day after all.
>Things behave as if they have a purpose.
no they don't. what is the purpose of an a comet flying alone through space?
>for an individual on Earth who believes in God to see it and have their lives and world impacted by it. I am shitting you not, the world and universe moves for you if you believe.

>>2341370
> Something must have set that purpose into their very nature.
it's a pretty big leap to go from "things have a purpose" (which is already begging the question) to "that purpose id derived from god."
>Do you know what begging the question means? Petito Principii is a logical fallacy that occurs when you've proven the initial claim to be fundamentally false, and so everything derived from it is false as well. You claiming the last argument on the page here as fundamentally a Petito Principii is ridiculous because you could have been doing that this whole time with the litany of other arguments like the one you've greentexted.

My work here is done. One more thing: just because the philosopher is older, does not make them incorrect. The older the philosophy, typically the more religious, but even this is not true either. It does show you how far we've fallen if that is a GENERAL trend, however.

>>2341366
There's always the dinosaur tissue, the facets of determining evolution from the surrounding environment proven to be false, and the fact that most of evolution is completely unobserved. Cell reproduction to create antiobiotics proof of evolution does not make.

Also, there's always the facet of life that God exists through us all and he designs our experiences pleasurably. Even the Gazelle is designed by God to live a life. A life that is good. Every creature enjoys their experience on this Earth. Designed by a creator.

>>2341378
>Even the Gazelle is designed by God to live a life. A life that is good.
Tell that to the Gazelle that just got ripped in half by an alligator.

>Every creature enjoys their experience on this Earth
Tell that to Schopenhauer.

>>2341378
>There's always the dinosaur tissue
Which dinosaur tissue?
>the facets of determining evolution from the surrounding environment proven to be false
How so?
>and the fact that most of evolution is completely unobserved.
So how would you classify the assemblage of fossils showing the progression across time of jawed fish with fins fused to their heads, to fish with defined shoulder girdles and separate limbs? Why does this not count as an observed evolution?
>Cell reproduction to create antiobiotics proof of evolution does not make.
Antibiotic resistance is actually a wonderful example of a selection pressure resulting in a different feature. We killed all the bacteria that were vulnerable to a compound, and in response the genes that allowed them to be more resistant became more common, and this progressed until now where the amounts of individuals resistant to antibiotics grows. This is the exact same process that lead the early fish with fins fused to their heads to fish with separate shoulders and a neck, to amphibians etc.

>>2341350
okay, first, jesus you suck at formatting. WHO ARE YOU QUOTING???
>You are angry because the infinity of the causes and effects happening in the universe cannot be completely materialized in a formalized system of physical logic and equations.
no i'm not. i was simply pointing out that it is only impossible for a human to list a cause for every change. there is no reason to think that it would be completley impossible for a list of causes to be made.
>The world moves according as God wills it
need some proof on that one, bud.
>If you have infinity behind you, that makes no sense.
even if this point were true (which i still have my doubts, but i'll grant you it because i don't have a proper counter argument), it still does little to prove the existence of a god. if a beginning is necessary, it does not follow to call that beginning "god."
>how else would it come into being?
i don't know. must've been god then.
>because even if it were inanimate, which is unlikely, the universe exists as it does thanks to this cause.
what is this mutilated bullshit? how is it unlikely? why does the vast, inanimate, expanse of the universe require a sentient creator?
>in no way does natural selection take place.
i posted this earlier in the thread: an organism which is better suited to survival will live longer, and therefore have more offspring. mutations in the genetic code cause new variation in organisms. over large periods of time, these factors cause speciation. all of this is supported by the fossil record. what parts of this do you disagree with?
>If there is an ultimate cause, that necessitates through the laws of predestination and causality that everything is intended as it is turning out by an ultimate creator.
this assumes, once again baselessly, that such a cause has some kind of intention.
(1/?)

>>2341370
>>In Platonism, the individual is inside a cave. The only things he can contemplate are how to remove his suffering. He sees shadows on the cave wall. He knows that things move. But he doesn't exactly know the specifics of these things. When he removes himself from his chains, he discovers all that was moving around him was designed to move around him, keep him occupied in his cave. The people moved the puppets in front of the fire because they had to, they were forced. Outside of the cave, the light is blinding.
what does any of this have to do with the questions i posed?
>On the lower end of the search for desire comes the desire to remove discomfort like hunger, or shelter. At the upper end of the platonic scale comes contemplating forms, atq the very top though is a fundamental idea. Something that was related to the sun in the allegory of the cave. The Good. The one that provides light and illuminates the earth. When a little kid learns about the cave allegory, he technically doesn't learn it this way, and that's because he learns it from a bastardized secular education system, The Good is tantamount to the highest there is. Logically, none could this be but God. Your ramblings are trying to elude this fact.
once again, how does this at all explain why god is inherently good? it's ironic that you referred to my arguments as "ramblings" when you just typed two paragraphs that failed to have any relation to the conversation at all, save a few vague references to the sun representing good, or some such nonsense (even though we've already agreed that "good" is a subjective concept).
>for an individual on Earth who believes in God to see it and have their lives and world impacted by it.
that's retarded. god made comets so that people could look at them and feel all mushy inside? is this seriously the best you people have to offer me?
> I am shitting you not, the world and universe moves for you if you believe.
i seriously doubt that.

All this shit comes down to is people saying that you have to BE god to "observe" evolution, big bang, etc.

I can understand the existential need for a rock to pin some objectivity on , especially in regards to morality and having a meaning in life. That's pathologically logical. Religion is a crutch that some have every right to lean on when life has broken their "legs."

But this thread is just dumb. The amount of film it would take to capture 1st hand accounts of questions like our origin would wrap around the planet millions of times. That since we haven't, we can't get a good idea of what has occured.

>>2341372
>Do you know what begging the question means?
yes.
>Petito Principii
wow you know the latin name for a logical fallacy, truly you are a paragon of knowledge without match.
>is a logical fallacy that occurs when you've proven the initial claim to be fundamentally false, and so everything derived from it is false as well.
"begging the question" as i understand it (and according to google, incidentally) is a form of logical fallacy in which a statement or claim is assumed to be true without evidence other than the statement or claim itself. in this instance, it is begging the question to simply say that "things have a purpose." it has yet to be demonstrated, and yet in order for one to accept aquinas' reasoning, you must also accept it to be true.
>You claiming the last argument on the page here as fundamentally a Petito Principii is ridiculous because you could have been doing that this whole time with the litany of other arguments like the one you've greentexted.
that wasn't actually my argument, i only mentioned that he was begging the question as an aside. my actual point was that even if i accepted that "things have a purpose" (which i don't), that doesn't necessarily mean that said purpose must come from god.
>My work here is done.
bang up job lad. maybe learn to use the website properly before attempting to use it. reading your posts was infuriating, less because of your stunning command of philosophical wisdom, and more because it looks like it was typed by my grandma.

>>2341506
Your grandmother probably believes in God then.

>>2341518
my grandma is dead

>>2341524
And her spirit is not.

>>2341528
she didn't have a spirit. there's no such thing.
unless of course you care to demonstrate the existence of the spirit?

Aquina's arguments in the Summa are nonsensical, and nothing more than a god-of-the-gaps argument.

Lastly, Aquinas makes this huge leap where he just assumes that the creator has to be the Christian God, when it could just as well - by his reasoning - have been any other deity that set the universe "in motion".

0/10, into the trash he goes.

>>2341533
Here, i'll save him the effort: you can't because it's in your heart and you will learn your spirit if you accept god etc etc bullshit
>>2341546
This is all that needs to be said. This should have been first post.

File: 1482203384674.jpg (36KB, 353x356px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 353x356px

>>2341546
>Cause and Effect is nonsensical

>>2341552
Yes you must understand why God exists. Why is there a resurgence of religious belief recently? Why was there religious belief in the first place?

Because God has come and interacted with people on Earth.

File: laughing bird.jpg (764KB, 798x1200px) Image search: [Google]

764KB, 798x1200px

>>2341046
>We know some people are 'more good' and some people are 'less good'

Holy fuck, this Aquinas faggot was spooked to Hell and back.

>>2341574
>literally appeal to popularity: the non argument
Nigga please

>>2341574
Shut the fuck up, faggot. You post your idiot drivel in every fucking thread.

>>2341583
He's right though

>>2341571
in this instance, yes.
mostly because it's being used to justify a completley unfounded position

>>2341600
not an argument

>>2341574
Are you the guy that got roasted by muslims in another thread? Why are you still posting?

>>2341603
All his conclusions are derived from logical facts

File: bakemono_o45kmbLAyB1rcmkybo1_1280.png (822KB, 1071x613px) Image search: [Google]

822KB, 1071x613px

>>2341615
It's always this same schizo who makes those Bible-thumping posts. Just report and ignore him.

>>2341618
no. see the countless posts in this thread that explain in detail how flawed his reasoning was.

>I believe in God by faith despite lack of evidence.
>But also here is some "evidence" for God (actually sophistry).

Why the backup plan?

File: e14.jpg (65KB, 601x601px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 601x601px

>>2341594
>>2341595
>>2341615
Why are you all so buttblasted if God isn't real?

>>2341636
All those posts are misunderstandings of his arguments. You need some knowledge of Aristotelian philosophy to properly parse his arguments, and when you do they are logically irrefutable. For example do you understand the difference between a material cause, a formal cause, an efficient cause and a final cause? If not then you're not equipped to understand the logic let alone try to refute it

>>2341046
Literal retard-tier apologism. And it does not explain why anyone should follow Jesus.

>>2341655
>all of those perfectly reasonable arguments against my postion are wrong because you just don't understand
not an argument.

>>2341618
Even if his arguments were flawless, arguments don't make things real. If you think something might exist, you look for it and you test it.

>>2341194
>God is obviously real
Wrong.
>The arguments presented therein are life affirming, and enhancing even.
No they aren't, Christianity is life-denying.

>>2341655
>logically irrefutable
Even if that were true, STILL doesn't mean that what they're talking about is real, doc. Just logically consistent.

>>2341122
>Things in the universe can be perceived to happen at different times, even different locations, but the original cause of those things is always perceived the same by all parties.
No, it isn't.

>>2341665
You can't make an argument against a position if you don't understand it. How do you 'prove' cosmology wrong without a knowledge of mathematics?

>>2341681
Yes it is.

>>2341694
Yeah, because people never perceive things wrong or differently.

>>2341691
once again, that's not an argument. i don't have to understand the obscure details of an argument to demonstrate that it's bullshit.

>>2341655
Which cause "causes" radioactive decay to occur?

>>2341295
Not that you can't do most everything with science, and not that a personal god isn't an unnecessary leap of logic to fill the gaps, but there are nonetheless things in our experience that are fundamental to it, that cannot be empirically analyzed, and even the current theories tell us there are things we will never know of, that would otherwise be within realm of science, were they not irrecoverably separated from our existence. Science itself dictates the existence of that latter group (which will continue to expand as the universe continues to expand.)

But I see we've already had quite enough of the "muh qualia" debate to bother with details as to the previous group.

Empirical is great, and can tell ya lot, but there will always be limitations, and while it can enlighten you as to the optimal path to a goal, what goals to set are ultimate outside its privy.

File: machall_god_jelly_donut_dougnut_aquainus.jpg (184KB, 576x898px) Image search: [Google]

184KB, 576x898px

>>2341194
Missing the point that plenty of philosophers, who do believe in God, and even belong to the same Church as Aquinas, and were even clergy to boot, have long since tossed out his approach and demonstrated thoroughly how butchered the logic behind it, both logically, and theologically.

Aquinas's tautological argument is as quaint and antiquated in Theology as Pythagoras views of eating beans being murder are to Philosophy. They are an interesting footnote of elaborate logical fallacies of ages past, not some great new truth denied only by atheists and agnostics or even theist, but rather, an argument all three groups agree is a demonstration of a simple pitfall made in ages past.

>>2341347
I think the difference between Bertrand Russell and you is that Bertrand realized there were gaps in comprehension and understanding that will never be filled.

>>2341199
Is this not every religious thread on his?

>>2341990
God that webcomic is a blast from the past. Thanks for that

File: 1484787449924.png (337KB, 1144x888px) Image search: [Google]

337KB, 1144x888px

>>2340778
>>2340789
Get your ass whooped!

>>2342028
https://i.4cdn.org/wsg/1486695830409.webm

>>2341574
>Why is there a resurgence of religious belief recently?

Islam spreading quicker than a wildfire.
Christian ministries going to shitty countries where people have a fuck ton of children.
Christian reactionism out of butthurt against Science.

File: 7bfde6a446974227aab10924dd4b1d242fa91b7e8a4982a6ae09a03598c5913e.jpg (245KB, 3750x3750px) Image search: [Google]

245KB, 3750x3750px

>>2340914
>this is a real actual Christcuck in current year trying to argue for a global flood

holy shit, how are you even capable of using a computer?

File: i did not have sexual relations with that woman.gif (2MB, 600x338px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 600x338px

>>2340778
>>2340789
ded

>>2341074
shoutout to this guy for eating out that other guys ass, bravo anon here's a (you)

>debating a literal creatard
Please. One link to talk.orgins would suffice.

>>2342047
>>2342267
Still buttblasted.

And I am still comfy.

>>2342093
This thread
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRNO1LFQBWI

>>2340436
Couldnt you apply the five ways to any religion? Doesn't that invalidate your religion's claim that its the true one faith and others are false?

>>2340874
Fucking Gilgamesh describes a flood.

>Atheists BTFO

>>2342178
There is some evidence that the Black Sea ACTUALLY flooded or that Mesopotamia had a severe flooding.

File: Odin.jpg (19KB, 220x323px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 220x323px

>>2340436
>mfw a christian thinks there's a reason why anyone should be a part of a Semitic Death Cult when Oðinn literally fucking slayed Ymir and created Miðgarðr

god is unfalsifiable

>>2342970
A lot of accounts from that time period describe a flood

>>2342982
The Black Sea expanding due to ice cap retreat = ! a worldwide flood that killed le dinosaurs (surprisingly Christians really have no literary argument for the gaping plot hole that is Noah ignoring all terrestrial life on the planet that isn't our modern Holocene fauna and somehow the oceanic flood killing off the marine reptiles... somehow...)

This plot hole grows bigger when you realize YECs argue ALL fossilized life existed on the planet at the same time period. When you extend it back to Ordovician or Cambrian fauna, the entire narrative becomes one giant joke and usually Christfags have to shout hoax at anything discovered before the Permian because even their abstract layers of bullshit can't handle life that existed before that.

>>2342982
And the Nile floods all the time. Flooding is a fact of life, and a big concern to civilizations that live near water. But a global flood is an entirely separate deal.

>>2342909
>Couldnt you apply the five ways to any religion

You actually can't, and the five ways are far from the end of Aquinas' arguments

>>2343064
I know, but to these people the small region was their world. All I wrote is that there is some evidence that large floods were universally problematic for early farming communities in the Levant and Mesopotamia. I don't believe in a global flood, sorry if my tone was confusing.

>>2343083
>You actually can't
Why not?

>>2340436
Logical Positivism was a mistake