>God explains the first cause >God always existed and had

The notion of always does not apply to a transcendental being above time.

File: 1499957903463.jpg (90KB, 570x675px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 570x675px

This is the worst counter-argument in the history of counter-arguments.

>"Because there cannot be an infinite regression of causes and effects, there must be a First Cause."

"Yeah okay but happened before that aye?"

Its fucking retarded. If God had something that came before Him, he wouldn't be the FIrst Cause, something else would be.

A much better counter-argument is "Why is the First Cause sentient? Why is the First Cause an intelligent being? Why identify the First Cause with the specific Deity of your particular religion? How do you go from 'Causality demands a Beginning' to Yahweh?'

This argument basically amounts to saying 'What happened before that which had nothing before it?" which is a contradiction in terms.

Fuck.

>>3120999
But that's unfalsifiable.

Again, why do you try to use logic?
Just admit that you like high fantasy.

>>3121015

Why is it so important that everyone believes the same thing you do?

>>3120986
Explain the first cause naturally.

File: New_Jerusalem_moebius.jpg (152KB, 960x666px) Image search: [Google]

152KB, 960x666px

>>3121015
Hell while we're at it Mr Retard [can I call you Re for short, or maybe just Tard?] here's an even better counter-argument so you can not make this horrible mistake in the future.

Why accept the premises in the first place? Why can't there be an infinite regression? What is time is cyclical?

Causality as a concept is entirely established empirically, there is no necessary logical relation between effects and their causes, the ideas remain distinct and are only noted to be linked through observation, so why accept Causality as a universal concept to begin with?

There are so many different angles of attack on the First Cause argument and yet for some reason complete imbeciles CONTINUE to miss the point of the argument and ask "What preceded the Unpreceded?" and act like they're being clever.

>>3121024
Because religion is superfluous to life, and magical thinking is one step away from brain problems.

>>3121036
muh dik muthaphukka

>>3121015
Because logical deduction is flawed.
Remind me of what the Tortoise spake to Achilles

>>3121038
Now respond to this
>>3121009
>"Why is the First Cause sentient? Why is the First Cause an intelligent being? Why identify the First Cause with the specific Deity of your particular religion? How do you go from 'Causality demands a Beginning' to Yahweh?'

>>3121049
>God of the gaps
you tried

>>3121054
Both of those are me. I posted both because there are legitimate ways of attacking the Cosmological Argument, but retards like OP continue to attack it in the most asinine fashion imaginable, acting like the arguments are delusion when he clearly doesn't even understand them enough to criticize them.

File: 1481631838852.png (457KB, 700x700px) Image search: [Google]

457KB, 700x700px

What caused the beginning of existence then, smart guy? Are you going to enlighten us to an unanswerable question?

>>3121066
Is this bait or do you not understand that atheism is admitting that we don't know things.

File: I2KmUhq.gif (2MB, 383x576px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 383x576px

>>3120986
>>3120999
>>3121009
>>3121015
>>3121024
>>3121036
>>3121038
>>3121048
>>3121049
>>3121054
>>3121059
>>3121065
>>3121066
>>3121071

>>3121009
>A much better counter-argument is "Why is the First Cause sentient?
^This. I never understood why anyone would believe a causeless super-context for reality would be a thinking entity with ideas / goals when everything we know about mental activity tells us it's the product of physical brains.

>>3121059
That's not the evidence for God.
Saying that the transcendental nature of God cannot be true is disproven by the inability of Logic to solve the infinite regression.
A God above time would be no more limited by time than you would be by the limits of 2-Dimensional space.
God does not exist before, because before is a precept that does not apply to anything above time.

>>3121065
What's to understand though, really?

The only reaonable way to justify belief is admitting that you took a leap of faith.
There is no logical explantion for God.

>>3121080
But we're still at square one! Where is the evidence that the first cause is sentient?

>>3121077
wtf I hate atheism now

File: 1500684059973.png (626KB, 716x642px) Image search: [Google]

626KB, 716x642px

>>3121048
Religion has nothing to do with God. Just because some religions use the God as their foundation and mythology does not invalidate the God. There are many religions unreliant on the God, ones that worship various aspects of nature or do not believe in gods at all, like atheistic Buddhism

>>3121081
Not him, but I'm not uncomfortable at all admitting said leap of faith. I was taught growing up that our belief in the unprovable is what makes us Christian.

Whoever tries to justify God logically is retarded, there is no logic, He just is.

>>3121077
I was arguing pro religion fyi

>>3121071
You're thinking of deism/agnosticism. Atheism means disbelief of God. If you admit that you "don't know things" surely that leaves the possibility of a higher power.

>>3121086
The God is above Sentience.
Sentience is a physiological process of transmission, requiring a mechanism to operate. God would not require a mechanism to operate.

>>3121048
So hows senior year going? Did you realize that everyone is different and will believe different things regardless of what you say? Did you realize that trying to use logic to disprove religion is retarded? Did you realize you're on your way to becoming a facist?

>>3121095
dude semantics lmao
You knew what I meant, pal. Context clues.

>>3121099
Ik I replied to everyone

>>3121114
Why

>>3121113
No, because you're lumping in conflating agnosticism with Atheism and confusing that mongrel with Anti-Religiosity

>>3121103
I think the idea is more that god is about as real as Santa.

>>3121117
Because fuck you that's why

>>3121127
Who hurt you

>>3121119
Huge, and I mean HUGE black members are inside my gaping asshole.

>>3121109
What was the point in God creating a form of thinking that required billions of years of evolution to get a physical brain that could generate it if he already had a way of thinking available that existed without any physical dependencies?

File: 1304376955947.png (457KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

457KB, 600x450px

>>3120986
>>God explains the first cause
>>God always existed and had no first cause
God is the first cause you moron

>>3121151
Proof?

>>3121171
Genesis. If you believe in God you believe that he is the First. If you want something more secular
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument

>>3121149
You're being held back by your Abrahamic preconceptions.
1) The notion that the Universe was purposefully "Created" by the Deity
2) That Humanity was directly conceived by the deity
3) That without humanity, there is no reason
There is cause and consequence with and without what we perceive as consciousness.

>>3121186
Not proof.
A conversation starter at best.

File: deism.jpg (101KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 1280x720px

>>3121120
You're a 20 year old living on a tiny primitive rock in the middle of infinite space. How do you know if a greater power is real or not? No human even slightly understands the universe. Your rejection to the notion of a demiurge is solely rooted to the fact that you disbelieve in man-made manuscript.

>>3121188
>You're being held back by your Abrahamic preconceptions.
Nope. I gave you a perfectly good description of a causeless, mindless super-context for reality that isn't at all Abrahamic. The Abrahamic stuff is what I ruled out, just like you've ruled it out.

>>3121196
>No human even slightly understands the universe.
That's a self-refuting statement. If it were true you wouldn't be qualified to know it.

>>3121196
>You're a 20 year old
Proofs????

>>3121195
Is proof
You are just too much of a brainlet to understand. You've probably never even heard of Aquinas until just now.

>>3121224
>Is proof
You've not proven that God exists.

>>3121234
I didn't. Aquinas did via a secular methodology. If you want to just compete a priori assertion then I can just keep saying
>God is real
Why you keep saying
>God is not real
Ad infinitum. Meanwhile you have basically just conceded that God, under Christian beliefs, is the First. Therefore the OP is null and void and you are asserting nothing

>>3121255
>Aquinas did via a secular methodology
I don't think you understand what the word "proof" means.

>>3121197
Ultimately, one can only say that both reason and science currently fail to explain the reality we experience. This in itself is not proof of a Deity, but it does evince that there's yet more to reality than we can yet, or may ever, be able to experience. I agree that one should not suppose the existence of a Supernatural being, but I also disagree that any God would be supernatural.
We may be ultimately unable to interact with true reality because of the physical limitations of our mechanism.

>>3121263
>god of the gaps
damn...

File: 1494896866555.png (312KB, 389x386px) Image search: [Google]

312KB, 389x386px

>>3121268
>When he didn't read the post

>>3121261
I don't think you do either. He has logically proved God a posteriori. You seem to think there is nothing a priori and confuse your opinions as being inherently truthful.

>>3121273
Who are you quoting?

>>3121287
Newfag

>>3121285
>He has logically proved God a posteriori
No?
There is no proof that God exists. You know this.

>>3121298
Yes?
There is proof that God exists. You know this.

>>3121311
>There is proof that God exists.
Then produce it.

>>3121205
>That's a self-refuting statement
It actually isn't, at all. Humanity (that we can comprehend) is nothing compared to the entirety of the universe. Your own statement is self-refuting, due to the fact that if all knowledge were available to humanity, the discussion wouldn't need to exist in the first place.

>>3121315
I did.

>>3121319
No?
Aquinas's five ways don't prove that God exists.

>>3121323
Yes?
Aquinas' Five Points does prove that God Exists.

>>3121317
>if all knowledge were available to humanity
No. You claimed you know that "no human even slightly understands the universe." Disputing that claim isn't the same thing as claiming "all knowledge is available." It's not an all or nothing proposition. You can understand a lot about something without knowing everything about it. Just because we don't have knowledge of what's going on in every single nanometer of the universe doesn't mean we don't know in broad strokes how great expanses of the universe operate via physics for example.

>>3121339
nah
They are all either not as good as he thinks they are (they don't prove god, they merely show thst we don't know the ultimate cause) or they have been straight up answered by science.

>>3121362
Nah
Those are all a priori assertions once again. You aren't actually arguing against Aquinas or other cosmological arguments for the existence of God you are just saying "I choose not the believe this"

>>3121317
>>3121349
Also to further clarify why your original claim is self-refuting, you claimed to know we don't even slightly understand the universe, but you would need to slightly understand the universe to know whether or not we slightly understand it. If you don't even slightly understand it then you wouldn't have any understanding of whether or not you understood it.

>>3121349
>You claimed you know that "no human even slightly understands the universe."
Which is a perfectly justifiable claim. Your only argument to the contrary seems to be 'we do know some stuff'. Obviously the greatest academics and scientists have understanding to how a fair deal of physics work relating to our universe, but not a single one of them will claim to even slightly know everything. Not even close. Experts in any field basically never claim to know everything. Again, if humans did truly have omniscience there would be no need for this conversation. It's not even close. Many of the "hard questions" are still open, on top of everything else that can possibly be learned, discovered, or understood.

>>3121382
We still have not moved past the fact that his arguments don't prove that God exists.

>>3121420
>know everything
You're doing it again. Not knowing everything isn't your original claim. There's a massive difference between not even slightly understanding something vs. not knowing everything about something.

>>3121385
humanity =/= universe
Already went through this.

>>3121434
I never claimed humanity is the universe.

>>3121422
I know, you are stubborn in your a prior beliefs and refuse to understand the arguments of others. You haven't even given me ye old "but what if the world isn't real, breh?" argument yet.

>>3121420
>>3121432
Also:
>if humans did truly have omniscience
Where are you getting this from? Nobody has claimed omniscience. This is the most ridiculous strawman I've ever seen.

>>3121451
Do you or do you not think that Aquinas has literally proved that God exists?

>>3121465
Have you or have you not presented an argument against Aquinas' assertions yet?

>>3121480
Memory problems I see.

My assertion is that he merely proved thag we don't know the first cause.
There isn't even an attempt to prove anything more than that.
He seems to think that that alone is a slam dunk case for god.

>>3121495
>My assertion is that he merely proved thag we don't know the first cause.
... Are you serious? His entire argument on contingency is for existence being real, as a given, a contingent being must exist. I see you have memory problems as well, what did you think I meant by saying that God is the First? This an argument of casuality that stems from Aristotle.

>>3121525
>as a given, a contingent being must exist.
This doesn't follow though.

>>3120986
Stupid stupid stupid or simpleton simpleton simpleton.
"Woe to those who quarrel with their Maker, those who are nothing but potsherds among the potsherds on the ground. Does the clay say to the potter, 'What are you making?' Does your work say, 'The potter has no hands'?

>>3121542
Not seeing any proof.

>>3121537
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmoved_mover

>>3121546
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendental_argument_for_the_existence_of_God
You don't need "proof"

>>3121558
An idea by a guy who hadn't even figured out buoyancy is not proof.

You are ignorant of wisdom

>>3121597
Proof?

>>3121585
*Does not make it inherently make it false
You forgot that add in with your ad hominem.

>>3121609
>Does not make it inherently make it false
Of course not, that's thr whole point. Religion is unfalsifiable. That is distinct from proof though.
Aquinas did not prove that God exists.
He put forth a few theories.

File: 1491191060433.jpg (60KB, 638x720px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 638x720px

>>3121585
Did you read my post, you motherfucker?
Also, you don't need to know about buoyancy to deduce that if all actions require cause, then there must either be an infinite series of causes, or a cause without a cause.

>>3121622
>Religion is unfalsifiable.
No, fundamentally no.

>>3121639
But why god, why not some alien civilization that created this universe in a lab?

>>3121651
sigh go on

>>3121622
You don't even know the theories or even attempt to discuss them and you are accusing religion of being unfalsifiable? Lol , fedora cringe at it's highest peak

>>3121656
>Sigh
>>>/leddit/
Do you just know nothing about theology at all even? Religion has never been unfalsifiable.

>>3121661
You seem so assured in your correctness and yet the closest thing to proof you've produced is a guy who thinks that an unknown prime mover must be god.

>>3121667
And yet there is,no scientific proof (read: proof) of God, and the crux of belief is the "leap of faith".

>>3121679
Leap of faith is not the crux of Christianity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendental_argument_for_the_existence_of_God

>>3121653
That's not an ultimate cause. Something created those aliens. Aristotle obviously doesn't say it's God, he just says it's whatever it is.

>>3121673
>He's just reading the first paragraph of the wiki page and rephrasing parts of the paragraph in an ad hominem manner that asserts his own position is inherently correct and to think otherwise is laughable
Read through the damn wiki article

>>3121694
That's not proof by your own admission.
see
>>3121565
>You don't need "proof"

>>3121700
>No refutation
Why can't you be like this guy
>>3121697
Who admits that it's not necessarily god.

>>3121679
Except there is proof *proof* of the existence of God. There is no less of faith, you simply have a methodology for accepting *proof* that I am challenging. The nature of proof itself is a topic of theology

>>3121709
It is a refutation, you have no refutation and you just don't understand it.

>>3121711
>Except there is proof *proof* of the existence of God.
Then fucking produce it.

>>3121709
Aristotle doesn't call it God, he just calls it the Unmoved Mover. It could be a force or spontaneity.
Arabs saw it as cognate with their God, and from there, the Medieval Philosophers took it and ran.

>>3121716
I disagree.

>>3121697
>Near the end of Metaphysics, Book Λ, Aristotle introduces a surprising question, asking "whether we have to suppose one such [mover] or more than one, and if the latter, how many."[27] Aristotle concludes that the number of all the movers equals the number of separate movements, and we can determine these by considering the mathematical science most akin to philosophy, i.e., astronomy. Although the mathematicians differ on the number of movements, Aristotle considers that the number of spheres would be 47 or 55. Nonetheless, he concludes his Metaphysics, Book Λ, with a quotation from the Iliad: "The rule of many is not good; one ruler let there be."[28][29]

The prime mover is a monotheistic argument.

>>3121719
I have multiple times but you're just too butthurt to read it :^).

Read
The wiki

>>3121728
That's a Romanticism.

>>3121736
I did, but you can't accept that for some reason.

File: BAB (big ashkenazim brain).jpg (31KB, 427x600px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 427x600px

/sci/fag here. It's funny to watch you faggots discussing things that you don't know about as if you knew about it. First of all, things *can* pop into existence without something else causing it. In fact, this happens all the time throughout space, as subatomic particles pop into existence but instantaneously a negative equivalent also pops into existence through quantum fluctuations effectively annihilating both particles. This is causes Hawking Radiation when it happens on the event horizon of a black hole. So causality is bullshit and this Universe is not deterministic. Second point, there is a thing called retro-causality that makes time work in both ways, stop talking about time as if it was an arrow that only works in one way. Third, perhaps most important, science does not prove or disprove the existence of God. It's simply outside the realm of science to determine the matters of metaphysics and anyone who says otherwise is a pop-sci faggot like Neil deGrease Tyson or Michio Kaku or someone who learns "science" by staring at CGI of deep space/Vsauce videos. I could go on. But really it's so fun to watch both sides arguing about stuff they don't know anything about.

>>3121740
No your beliefs are a romantacism used to justify nihilism, which you have consistently done ad infinitum this entire conversation.

>>3121747
black people

>>3121741
You didn't. I know you didnt read it because you still haven't refuted it, you simply said
>Implying there is a prime mover
Arguing that Aristotle's argument doesn't exist a priori.

>>3121769
>you simply said
>>Implying there is a prime mover
No?

I said that a prime mover does not mean god.

File: 8a4.jpg (30KB, 316x202px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 316x202px

>>3121746
No shit retards that's the transcendental argument .
Ashkenazi are dumb inbred polish psychotic idiots.
REEEEEEEEEEEEE

File: 1494737286225.png (888KB, 671x649px) Image search: [Google]

888KB, 671x649px

>>3121747
Putting aside the fact that I've been arguing Deism the whole time, even if God exists, it doesn't matter.
It doesn't care about us, and if it does consider us at all, it's probably fine with what's going on.

>>3121679
>And yet there is,no scientific proof
>You can't recreate or control God so therefore God does not exist
Wew lad

Georges Sorel

>He dismissed science as "a system of idealised entities: atoms, electric charges, mass, energy and the like – fictions compounded out of observed uniformities... deliberately adapted to mathematical treatment that enable men to identify some of the furniture of the universe, and to predict and... control parts of it." [1; 301] He regarded science more as "an achievement of the creative imagination, not an accurate reproduction of the structure of reality, not a map, still less a picture, of what there was. Outside of this set of formulas, of imaginary entities and mathematical relationships in terms of which the system was constructed, there was ‘natural’ nature – the real thing…" [1; 302] He regarded such a view as "an odious insult to human dignity, a mockery of the proper ends of men", [1; 300] and ultimately constructed by "fanatical pedants", [1; 303] out of "abstractions into which men escape to avoid facing the chaos of reality." [1; 302]

>>3121790
I'm not going to argue with you anymore. You're clearly depressed and have some kind of disturbances. God will send you to Hell for being like this. You're pathetic.

>>3121794
This doesn't say anything. He's just calling science shit.

>>3121775
Looking through our comment chain, I'm not finding it.

Nevertheless, I'll assume this to be your argument. Why isn't the prime mover God? There are many interpretations of monotheism.

File: 1458273532232.jpg (14KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 250x250px

>>3121790
>atheist
>anime post
Can't say I didn't see that coming.
Enjoy being sent to Hell.

>>3121803
>God will send you to Hell for being like this.
LARPer or honest to G-d retard?

>>3121804
No he is saying that the scientific method is not a method to understand reality, it is simply a method to control parts of it therefore science in itself is not a theological proof of anything outside of science, which j in itself is just an attempt to reproduce certain phenomenon

>As far as Sorel was concerned, "nature is not a perfect machine, nor an exquisite organism, nor a rational system." [1; 302] He rejected the view that "the methods of natural science can explain and explain away ideas and values…or explain human conduct in mechanistic or biological terms, as the…blinkered adherents of la petite science believe." [1; 310] He also maintained that the categories we impose upon the world, "alter what we call reality…they do not establish timeless truths as the positivists maintained", [1; 302] and to "confuse our own constructions with eternal laws or divine decrees is one of the most fatal delusions of men." [1; 303] It is "ideological patter... bureaucracy, la petite science... the Tree of Knowledge has killed the Tree of Life... human life [has been reduced] to rules that seem to be based on objective truths." [1; 303] Such to Sorel, is the appalling arrogance of science, a vast deceit of the imagination, a view that conspires to "stifle the sense of common humanity and destroy human dignity." [1; 304]

>>3121807
>Why isn't the prime mover God? There are many interpretations of monotheism.
You're re-framing. My entire point is that Aquinas is not incontravertable proof of God, not that God 100% does not exist. The God meme endures because it is unfalsifiable.

>>3121820
>the scientific method is not a method to understand reality, it is simply a method to control parts of it
Did he prove this or not?

>>3121821
Except God is falsifiable, you can discredit and disbelieve all you want. There are many theories on metaphysics

>>3121826
>Criticizing the scientific method is impossible because you have to prove everything with the scientific method
What is unfalsifiable now?

>>3121841
So god exists but you can't prove it

>>3121865
No I can, I just don't have to use the scientific method as the means by which I prove God. To you, the scientific method is an unfalsifiable method by which to understand reality , I do not believe that. I believe that the scientific method is the understanding of the phenomenon but not the noumena.

>Science, he maintained, "is not a ‘mill’ into which you can drop any problem facing you, and which yields solutions", [1; 311] that are automatically true and authentic. Yet, he claimed, this is precisely how too many people seem to regard it.

>To Sorel, that is way "too much of a conceptual, ideological construction", [1; 312] smothering our perception of truth through the "stifling oppression of remorselessly tidy rational organisation." [1; 321] For Sorel, the inevitable "consequence of the modern scientific movement and the application of scientific categories and methods to the behaviour of men", [1; 323] is an outburst of interest in irrational forces, religions, social unrest, criminality and deviance – resulting directly from an overzealous and monistic obsession with scientific rationalism.

>And what science confers, "a moral grandeur, bureaucratic organisation of human lives in the light of…la petite science, positivist application of quasi-scientific rules to society – all this Sorel despised and hated", [1; 328] as so much self-delusion and nonsense that generates no good and nothing of lasting value.

>>3120986
>assuming an infinite being is confined to your finite definition of time
>assuming a being of infinite dimmensions would ever be confined by the fourth, which he created, or also the fabric of spacetime, which he also created

learn2universeundersanding
there's a lot more to it then you or me could ever hope to figure out

>>3120986
fedora so fucking tipped OP became God

>>3122028
So god exists but you can't prove it. You haven't made a good case for why science isn't the best tool of understanding we've got.