Unmoved mover

You can't get an idea more simple than this. And, however, it has not been refuted.

  1. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    But what created the unmoved mover?

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      Fallacy. It's called unmoved because no one moved it.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        You have been refuted

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        Only things which have a beginning demand a cause. The universe has a beginning, therefore it demands a cause. That cause can't also have a beginning, or you get an infinite regress of causes. So the most parsimonious thing to do and logically necessary thing to do is to end the regress with one entity, the necessary being (god). So that which begins (the universe) is called contingent entity or being. That which does not begin (god) is called a necessary being or entity. You are making the mistake addressed in this vid

        What the atheist then has to do is argue against the universe having a beginning, which runs in to problems of actual infinities of prior events and infinite temporal regress, and is also contrary to empirical, physical data. If you want to see this argument, which is a cosmological/contingency argument, get carried through perfectly, and watch bertrand russell get humiliated, watch this

        [...]
        See the first vid in this post

        >things don't need movers to move
        So then why do we need an unmoved mover? Why can't the universe just move itself?

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Why can't the universe just move itself?
          Because it began. Premise three. The universe can't be it's own cause because it would have had to exist before it's own beginning in order to cause itself. This is illogical. Everything physical has a cause. You have a cause, which is your parents. Your parents have a cause, namely their respective parents. A loaf of bread has a cause, which is the baker. A house has a cause, which is the construction crew. Everything in the physical world/universe has a cause. This is why physical objects are contingent. And this contingency goes right back to the big bang to include the physical universe itself. It doesn't have to begin at the big bang either.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >The universe can't be it's own cause because it would have had to exist before it's own beginning in order to cause itself.
            Applies to volcano boy too

            • 3 months ago
              Anonymous

              No, it doesn't. Only things which begin demand a cause. See the argument here

              You have two choices
              >postulate another contingent being which initiated the system and continue infinite regress
              >postulate a necessary being which initiated the system avoid infinite regress
              You want to avoid those infinite regresses in logic by postulating the least amount of entities
              So construct an actual argument from logic
              Premise 1:
              Anything that exists has an explanation of it's existence, either in the necessity of it's own nature or in an external explanation.
              Premise 2:
              The universe has an explanation for it's existence, and that explanation is grounded in a necessary being.
              Premise 3:
              The universe exists
              Premise 4:
              Therefore the universe has and explanation existence from 1 and 3.
              Premise 5:
              Therefore the explanation of the existence of the universe is grounded in a necessary being (from 2 and4).

              And see the beginners mistake you are making in the first vid here

              Only things which have a beginning demand a cause. The universe has a beginning, therefore it demands a cause. That cause can't also have a beginning, or you get an infinite regress of causes. So the most parsimonious thing to do and logically necessary thing to do is to end the regress with one entity, the necessary being (god). So that which begins (the universe) is called contingent entity or being. That which does not begin (god) is called a necessary being or entity. You are making the mistake addressed in this vid

              What the atheist then has to do is argue against the universe having a beginning, which runs in to problems of actual infinities of prior events and infinite temporal regress, and is also contrary to empirical, physical data. If you want to see this argument, which is a cosmological/contingency argument, get carried through perfectly, and watch bertrand russell get humiliated, watch this

              [...]
              See the first vid in this post

              The argument is not that EVERYTHING has a cause it's is that things which begin have a cause.These are contingent entities. The universe began, so it demands an explanation of cause. To avoid multiplying entities beyond necessity, the regress can be ended by postulating only one necessary entity which is eternal (something the universe is not). And so this entity is what in philosophy is called a necessary being or entity.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Only things which begin demand a cause
                This was already established, Yahweh has a cause.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Not sure what you are talking about. It's you lie though, tell it how you want.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >To avoid multiplying entities beyond necessity,
                Why do we have to "multiply entities" though? No one is saying that we even need a single entity to explain the universe's creation. The life and death of the universe could be an unbroken chain, a closed loop, going on forever, in fact it's more likely than an "infinite regress" of causative beings or a single causative being for that matter

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >No one is saying that we even need a single entity to explain the universe's creation
                I am saying that. See here

                The reason the unmoved mover argument seems to hold is because it provides the ultimate epistemic justification. It is pure foundationalism. As per the JTBG theory of truth (justified, true belief that has been de-Gettierised) one must provide justification for knowledge to be possible: why are things that way and not another way. I know the cat is on the mat partly because I have the justification of seeing the cat on the mat which gives me a reason for believing this and not something else. Thus for us to know anything it seems like there must be an unmoved mover, because if there is an infinite chain of causation then we cannot have a tenable justification for any claim.
                We find the issue with this grounding however is that when we inquire into what is- ontology. There is an is of thatness and an is of whatness: is it? What is it? The unmoved mover only answers one of these questions: what is it? The Thomist will tell you that ultimately it is grounded in God. However this is problematic when we ask the is of thatness. How is it essentially possible for something to be? What does it mean to be? If it is true that things *are* by virtue of God- to be is to be grounded in Him- then how can we possibly say that God is? Is God self grounding? Then he is not unmoved. However if we say God is beyond this concern of grounding and that he is "beyond being" as the Patristics say, then how can we say "God exists"? This proposition become undecidable.

                The universe could not have caused itself. It would have to have existed before it's own beginning to have done this. This is illogical. This is the type of illogical roads you have to go down when you deny that there was a creator of this physical reality. The best would just at least accept deism so as to avoid dissonance. The argument is not defeatable. And it's not even my argument, so I am not being arrogant. Some entity which has the attributes of beginninglessness and the ability to create physical universes such as the one we are immersed exists. This is a deductively valid argument. Do what you will with this info.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >It would have to have existed before it's own beginning to have done this.
                why can yahweh do this but not the universe though?

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                I am not making any claims about 'yahweh'. Maybe restate you question in a way that references one of my posts.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                More pilpul—many such cases in theology, Tommy!

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                False dichotomy to dismiss my argument.
                If there was a famous philosopher that proved that causality was a structure of human cognition and not native the the physical world what would you do with that knowledge?

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >If there was a famous philosopher that proved that causality was a structure of human cognition and not native the the physical world what would you do with that knowledge?
                I am an idealist so I wouldn't have a problem with mind oriented causality. I believe in a participatory universe which includes agent causation/determination. I believe that the god is also ultimately a mind as well. But this would not change the contingency status of the physical world. It began. This is the salient point. The causal structure once the system begins is irrelevant. I generally argue from a materialist event causal point of view because that is the most common (erroneous) point of view. So if you are saying that the commonly held inferences about causality with regards to physics is false, I would agree. I believe that causality does not even come from within spacetime, as has been shown through faster than light bell type correlations in experiments such as the ones that zeilinger aspect and clauser just won the nobel prize for. Causality is non-local. Causality comes from outside the universe (outside of spacetime). And ultimately it is not coming from the hilbert space of QM either.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >The argument is not that EVERYTHING has a cause it's is that things which begin have a cause.
                Right off the bat you're claiming there's things with beginning, and by implication things—or rather a thing—without beginning. If this is your starting premise, one which won't itself be argued for since it is axiomatic to you, what's the point? You are going to tell us one of your dogmatic concepts causes the other dogmatic concept? Wow, who cares? Everything after this is a joke since you've already declared for some astral transcendent uncaused cause right in that first premise. Finishing off your schizo rant by saying the things that begin began with the thing that doesn't begin, when you've not demonstrated these distinctions actually exist, what use is that to anyone who doesn't already agree with you? This is why theology died.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Right off the bat you're claiming there's things with beginning, and by implication things—or rather a thing—without beginning
                No, I am not. This is premise one
                >Premise 1:
                Anything that exists has an explanation of it's existence, either in the necessity of it's own nature or in an external explanation.
                >If this is your starting premise, one which won't itself be argued for since it is axiomatic to you, what's the point?
                I have argued for it. here

                >Why can't the universe just move itself?
                Because it began. Premise three. The universe can't be it's own cause because it would have had to exist before it's own beginning in order to cause itself. This is illogical. Everything physical has a cause. You have a cause, which is your parents. Your parents have a cause, namely their respective parents. A loaf of bread has a cause, which is the baker. A house has a cause, which is the construction crew. Everything in the physical world/universe has a cause. This is why physical objects are contingent. And this contingency goes right back to the big bang to include the physical universe itself. It doesn't have to begin at the big bang either.

                >Everything physical has a cause. You have a cause, which is your parents. Your parents have a cause, namely their respective parents. A loaf of bread has a cause, which is the baker. A house has a cause, which is the construction crew. Everything in the physical world/universe has a cause. This is why physical objects are contingent. And this contingency goes right back to the big bang to include the physical universe itself. It doesn't have to begin at the big bang either.
                If you want to give a counter argument about physical things not needing causes, go ahead. You are the one making extraordinary claims, namely that physical things do not need causes. The evidence is on my side.
                >You are going to tell us one of your dogmatic concepts causes the other dogmatic concept?
                No. I have do the opposite of that. You are also appealing to emotion by using the word dogma. I have said nothing about religion. This is a logical argument.
                >Finishing off your schizo rant by saying the things that begin began with the thing that doesn't begin, when you've not demonstrated these distinctions actually exist, what use is that to anyone who doesn't already agree with you? This is why theology died.
                I didn't say any of that and it is apparent that you are starting to get butthurt because you have no argument. None of the things that you have put forward as things which I have claimed are accurate. You have no argument. Don't feel bad though. The argument is undefeatable.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                So you don't believe in a first cause after all? I didn't realize you were a Buddhist.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >So you don't believe in a first cause after all?
                I didn't say that. You are just continually making shit up because you have no counter argument.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                You have no argument yourself. You assert caused things are caused by the uncaused cause, but run this through a few sets of vocabulary words. It's never demonstrated.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Because it began
            No it didn't.

            >The universe can't be it's own cause because it would have had to exist before it's own beginning in order to cause itself.
            Yahweh has a beginning though, so why is he exempt from this? Yahweh has parents, so he has a cause. Why does he get to be exempt from this?

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Everything physical has a cause
            Please update your knowledge about the world beyond pre-19th century philosophy and science. We assume causality and homogeneity are things - this is absolutely zero evidence for cause and effect, and no argument for its existence beyond saying, "Well, it looks that way to me!"

            • 3 months ago
              Anonymous

              This
              here

              >Your axioms are illogically constructed
              No, they are not
              >Premise 3 should come before 2
              No, it shouldn't
              >and insisting the the universe is grounded in a necessary being instead of its own necessary nature
              The fact that the universe began makes it a contingent being and excludes it from being necessary. It can't have caused itself, because in order to do this, it would have had to have existed before it's own existence. So it is contingent upon another being for it's initiation. The universe could not initiate itself in other words. At this point, you have two choices
              >another contingent being created the universe, in which case you get an infinite regress of contingent beings, or, a single entity which is not contingent, IE did not begin, and therefore needs no explanation for it's existence because things which don't begin don't need causes, as explained in premise one.
              >So, not only can you not construct a set of consistent axioms
              They are consistent. There's nothing contradictory premise 3 is true, the universe does exist. Premise two follows from 1 in that it exists and therefore has an explanation. Premise three sets up for the declaration in premise 4. Read it again excluding premise 3 and you will see the reason for it being there. I thought the same thing when I first saw the argument, but there is a reason for the structure. There is no illogic. You, like everyone else who has attempted, have failed at constructing a counter argument.
              >We assume causality and homogeneity are things - this is absolutely zero evidence for cause and effect, and no argument for its existence beyond saying, "Well, it looks that way to me!
              Really? There's no argument for the fact that you are the effect caused by your parents having sex? There is no argument for the baked loaf of bread being caused by the baker? I will have to disagree there. I addressed this idea here already.
              [...]
              You are confusing the idea that we can't always declaratively say what the exact mechanism for a particular effect to have happened with the idea that things are not caused at all. You were caused. I was caused. If I hack at a tree with an ax till it falls down, then I have caused the tree to fall. We can argue about what the mechanism is for the tree falling, ie is the world virtual and the tree is caused by a physics engine and calculations, such as when a tree falls in a video game, or it some entity called gravity etc. In both cases, the consciousness choosing to chop the tree, be it the guy controlling the character in the video game, or the consciousness choosing to swing the ax in the physical world, caused the tree to fall. And the ultimate cause for all of these physical events, regardless of the mechanism and details after the first cause, goes back to the initiation of the physical world from the first cause, regardless of the causality hence forth after that cause.

              Was directed to you
              >We assume causality and homogeneity are things - this is absolutely zero evidence for cause and effect, and no argument for its existence beyond saying, "Well, it looks that way to me!
              Really? There's no argument for the fact that you are the effect caused by your parents having sex? There is no argument for the baked loaf of bread being caused by the baker? I will have to disagree there. I addressed this idea here already.

              >Why can't the universe just move itself?
              Because it began. Premise three. The universe can't be it's own cause because it would have had to exist before it's own beginning in order to cause itself. This is illogical. Everything physical has a cause. You have a cause, which is your parents. Your parents have a cause, namely their respective parents. A loaf of bread has a cause, which is the baker. A house has a cause, which is the construction crew. Everything in the physical world/universe has a cause. This is why physical objects are contingent. And this contingency goes right back to the big bang to include the physical universe itself. It doesn't have to begin at the big bang either.

              (You)
              You are confusing the idea that we can't always declaratively say what the exact mechanism for a particular effect to have happened with the idea that things are not caused at all. You were caused. I was caused. If I hack at a tree with an ax till it falls down, then I have caused the tree to fall. We can argue about what the mechanism is for the tree falling, ie is the world virtual and the tree is caused by a physics engine and calculations, such as when a tree falls in a video game, or it some entity called gravity etc. In both cases, the consciousness choosing to chop the tree, be it the guy controlling the character in the video game, or the consciousness choosing to swing the ax in the physical world, caused the tree to fall. And the ultimate cause for all of these physical events, regardless of the mechanism and details after the first cause, goes back to the initiation of the physical world from the first cause, regardless of the causality hence forth after that cause.

              Your axioms are illogically constructed. Premise 3 should come before 2. You're also simply rejecting one of your own premises, that being
              >either in the necessity of its own nature
              and insisting the the universe is grounded in a necessary being instead of its own necessary nature.
              So, not only can you not construct a set of consistent axioms, you can't even follow your own axioms to a logical conclusion.

            • 3 months ago
              Anonymous

              Your axioms are illogically constructed. Premise 3 should come before 2. You're also simply rejecting one of your own premises, that being
              >either in the necessity of its own nature
              and insisting the the universe is grounded in a necessary being instead of its own necessary nature.
              So, not only can you not construct a set of consistent axioms, you can't even follow your own axioms to a logical conclusion.

              >The universe could not initiate itself
              And why is Yahweh able to do this? This thing you imagined outside of reality must have caused reality, because you've defined it as the cause of reality?

              Here is a video that will give you more insight into the mistakes in reasoning you have made. This is the origin of where I got the argument.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >mistakes in reasoning
                How about "mistakes in using prophetic utterances as logical arguments"? Where did you get the idea that some things begin and some things do not?

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        Oh, yes - the tried and true pure logicians tool of
        >Take as axiom that we are correct.

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          This is nonsense.
          >a. Every act has a cause.
          >b. Every cause is produced (or preceeded) by another cause.
          These are axioms. Then you have to go by:
          >z. There are infinite causes, and there are not initial cause.
          >y. There is an initial cause that was not initialized by anything.
          How is this complex to you?

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            A contradicts Z

            QED

            • 3 months ago
              Anonymous

              Bait.

              GFY

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      >but who created the creator?

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      Replying to you because so many of the replies defending St Thomas have been based on utter misrepresentations so I want to set things straight.
      To understand St. Thomas, one must grasp the distinction between potentiality and actuality. All contingent things possess both actuality and potentiality. For example, my pot is actually cold, but it has the potential to become hot. My window is actually intact, but it has the potential to shatter.
      Thus St. Thomas defines motion as the actualisation of a potential. If I throw a rock at my window, it will go from being potentially shattered to being actually shattered. If I heat my pot, its potential to be hot will be actualised.
      But, St. Thomas argues, for any potential to be actualised it must be actualised by something which is already in a state of actuality. This is because the state of potentiality has no power to actualise itself or anything else.
      Thus any instance of motion can be traced back through a causal series of actualisers. Eg. [Flame —> Pot becomes hot —> water becomes hot —> pasta becomes hot.]
      Now a distinction must be made here between causal series ordered per accidens (such as the pasta example above) and causal series ordered per se. The latter is what we are interested in. Causal series ordered per se are those in which every member derives its state of actuality from a more fundamental member in the series, in such a way that, were we to eliminate any member in the series, the subsequent members would all lose their current state of actuality.
      For example, if I hold my phone in the air, my phone has gone from being potentially in the air to being actually in the air. The series of causality here would be [phone <— hand <— forearm <— bicep <— neurons <— … ]
      If we inspect this series of causality we will see that it is a series ordered per se, because if we removed forearm from the equation, the phone would cease being in the air; and it’s the same with all of the members in the series.
      Now the series cannot extend infinitely, because of the property we have just been discussing. Because the series is ordered per se, each member derives its actuality from a more fundamental member. Thus if the series extended back infinitely, it would be like connecting an infinite number of extension leads together, without ever connecting them to a power source, and expecting to get power from them. It is clear that we need a power source; and, by extension, it is clear we need a prime mover.
      Now the prime mover must be purely actual with no potentiality; or what the Thomists call “actus purus”, because it is the most fundamental member. I will not prove this here because the comment is getting too long, but you can see intuitively why it should be the case.

      Sancte Thoma de Aquino, ora pro nobis!

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        >you can see intuitively why it should be the case
        No, the entire thread has been about why "intuition" does not count as evidence. You can intuit God all you like since you insist there must be an uncaused cause because there must be an uncaused cause because there must be an uncaused cause. It's interesting you compared the prime mover to a power source. You are aware that electricity comes from consuming some sort of fuel right? The energy needs to be retrieved from a source, and this source itself has been processed in some way such that it stores energy. Now, we might go further still and after a long discussion about oil, orgnic matter, herbivores, and photosynthesis say the energy comes from sun. But would we then decide the sun has no cause? It's a little difficult to get over there and investigate isn't it? How confident are you really that the sun merely IS, and has no cause, and is without beginning and without end, destined to sustain all things endlessly?

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          The argument proves the existence of a prime mover, a sort of “power source”, as you say. This power source cannot be a contingent thing like the sun because it must have power from itself and cannot be put in motion by something else (otherwise that thing would be the prime mover).

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >a sort of “power source”, as you say.
            As YOU say, dimwit. It's YOUR bad analogy. My point is that you, in considering the absence of a prime mover to be equivalent to a bunch of extension cords without an outlet, are merely recreating the same problem that is being raised to you, and not solving it. Electricity does not come from the outlet. It comes from a process of recycling energy received from the sun. The sun is not an eternal entity existing outside of causality, as far as we know. But if you know otherwise about the sun do demonstrate this. Not interested in "it must be so because I have defined it as such," because by that logic I have a rhinoceros in my basement. After all, my basement must contain a rhinoceros, by definition. If it didn't, it wouldn't be my basement.

            • 3 months ago
              Anonymous

              >If I work hard enough I can avoid engaging with any meaning communicated and then I win.. something

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Look. I've defined my basement as necessarily including a rhinoceros. That's what makes it my basement. Other basements which are not mine have no such animal in them. So when I am referring to basements in general those haven't a rhinoceros, but there exists a basement which has a rhinoceros and that is my basement. You're being emotional if you can't agree with this.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Okay but why are you saying all this retarded shit about rhinos? It has nothing to do with anything. It's not analogous to anything said. You think Aristotle and everyone since would be confused by this like you are?
                >it's like the tooth fairy
                >it's like a made up rhino
                No. It's basic fucking logic.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >for my first premise, *clears throat* things which have a cause are caused by an uncaused cause
                >the rest of these are just me agreeing with my dogmatic assertion so they're not even needed
                >see, flawless logic and argumentation
                As I was saying, my basement has a rhinoceros. Just as we may observe that basements in general do not have a rhinoceros in them, so too it is necessary that my basement has one. And I think it's quite clear from what has been said that this is logically necessary. If my basement didn't have a rhinoceros, when I go down to do my laundry I would be in some sort of infinite void beneath my house. Since my basement is beneath my house, it has a rhinoceros.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >for my first premise,
                Why don't you reply to anything I actually say? Why do you work so hard to ignore anything I might possibly be trying to communicate? Do you think it's possible to read text which you afford absolutely no generosity and work hard to undermine every word as you read it?

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Why do you work so hard to ignore anything I might possibly be trying to communicate?
                Why do you think I am unserious about my basement? You're being ignorant—sinfully so.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        You're just dodging the problem by restating it under a different name. Why is Yahweh, a finite, created being, with a beginning, exempt from the statement that all created beings must have a creator, while the universe cannot be, even though it is infinite, uncreated, and without beginning? You have ignored this the entire thread, so why not just answer it?

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          I'm not a Christian but if god were eternal then would you accept his existence? Also, are you sure the universe is infinite "and without beginning"? It's not exactly weird today to think that the universe is actually finite.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            Well if you could demonstrate Yahweh's existence then I'd accept his existence, eternal or not. If you want to argue for an entity that HAS to be present, you'd have to demonstrate some mechanism that depends on him, and explain why the universe depends on him for its existence. OP hasn't done that.

            If you want to argue what Aristotle did, with a plurality of deities running the world and a bunch of causal mechanisms to explain how their existence can be shown through reason and empiricism, then sure, that's a good start, but OP hasn't done that.

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          First of all, I haven’t “ignored this the whole thread”. This (

          Replying to you because so many of the replies defending St Thomas have been based on utter misrepresentations so I want to set things straight.
          To understand St. Thomas, one must grasp the distinction between potentiality and actuality. All contingent things possess both actuality and potentiality. For example, my pot is actually cold, but it has the potential to become hot. My window is actually intact, but it has the potential to shatter.
          Thus St. Thomas defines motion as the actualisation of a potential. If I throw a rock at my window, it will go from being potentially shattered to being actually shattered. If I heat my pot, its potential to be hot will be actualised.
          But, St. Thomas argues, for any potential to be actualised it must be actualised by something which is already in a state of actuality. This is because the state of potentiality has no power to actualise itself or anything else.
          Thus any instance of motion can be traced back through a causal series of actualisers. Eg. [Flame —> Pot becomes hot —> water becomes hot —> pasta becomes hot.]
          Now a distinction must be made here between causal series ordered per accidens (such as the pasta example above) and causal series ordered per se. The latter is what we are interested in. Causal series ordered per se are those in which every member derives its state of actuality from a more fundamental member in the series, in such a way that, were we to eliminate any member in the series, the subsequent members would all lose their current state of actuality.
          For example, if I hold my phone in the air, my phone has gone from being potentially in the air to being actually in the air. The series of causality here would be [phone <— hand <— forearm <— bicep <— neurons <— … ]
          If we inspect this series of causality we will see that it is a series ordered per se, because if we removed forearm from the equation, the phone would cease being in the air; and it’s the same with all of the members in the series.
          Now the series cannot extend infinitely, because of the property we have just been discussing. Because the series is ordered per se, each member derives its actuality from a more fundamental member. Thus if the series extended back infinitely, it would be like connecting an infinite number of extension leads together, without ever connecting them to a power source, and expecting to get power from them. It is clear that we need a power source; and, by extension, it is clear we need a prime mover.
          Now the prime mover must be purely actual with no potentiality; or what the Thomists call “actus purus”, because it is the most fundamental member. I will not prove this here because the comment is getting too long, but you can see intuitively why it should be the case.

          Sancte Thoma de Aquino, ora pro nobis!

          ) is my first contribution to this thread.
          Now your argument isn’t very clear, but it seems that you’re operating under the assumption that St. Thomas’ argument relies on a finite universe. This is not the case. St. Thomas’ argument is about causal series ordered per se, as I explained in my original post. These sorts of causal series are not based on a temporal sequence of causality going back to the beginning of the universe. Rather, they are about causality in the here and now; they are about deriving power for motion in the present. St. Thomas himself was philosophically agnostic on whether the universe had a beginning or not. He thought it couldn’t be proven either way. His argument works even if the universe is eternal.

          >a sort of “power source”, as you say.
          As YOU say, dimwit. It's YOUR bad analogy. My point is that you, in considering the absence of a prime mover to be equivalent to a bunch of extension cords without an outlet, are merely recreating the same problem that is being raised to you, and not solving it. Electricity does not come from the outlet. It comes from a process of recycling energy received from the sun. The sun is not an eternal entity existing outside of causality, as far as we know. But if you know otherwise about the sun do demonstrate this. Not interested in "it must be so because I have defined it as such," because by that logic I have a rhinoceros in my basement. After all, my basement must contain a rhinoceros, by definition. If it didn't, it wouldn't be my basement.

          The reason I made this analogy is that in the causal series ordered per se each member of the series derives its power to actualise from a previous, more fundamental member. These relations are not temporal in nature, relying on tracing back causes to the beginning of the universe. Rather, they are relations of dependence. So the extension cord analogy is a perfect one. If you connect a bunch of extension cords together, the first one derives its power from the second one, the second from the third, and so on. Unless there is a power source at the end of this chain, you will not be able to charge your phone from them. In a similar way, every causal series ordered per se must terminate at a prime mover, from which each subsequent element must derive its power. This prime mover must have power in itself and cannot derive its power from a previous member else that previous member would be the prime mover.
          I don’t understand why you’re bringing the physics of electricity and the sun into this. It’s an analogy, and therefore trying to make it rigorous is futile and obfuscates the main point. The point of an analogy is to highlight some principle, not to be super-accurate. The point of the extension cord analogy is that it is identical to the causal series ordered per se because each of them are series based on relations of dependence (each member derives its power from a previous more fundamental member).

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >in the causal series ordered per se each member of the series derives its power to actualise from a previous, more fundamental member. These relations are not temporal in nature, relying on tracing back causes to the beginning of the universe. Rather, they are relations of dependence
            This is just more avoidance of the issue, which is that the theist immediately starts his argument with a claim implying God and then ends on the same note. So instead of saying caused things have a cause (which leaves open the uncaused thing), you say any member of series depends on a prior member (which leaves open the non-serial). It's just dogmatic babble.

            • 3 months ago
              Anonymous

              More braindead emotional associations.
              Polytheists developed formal logic which demanded a universal cause.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Polytheists developed formal logic which demanded a universal cause.
                They're wrong too dipshit. It's the same problem. But at least they weren't dicks about it

            • 3 months ago
              Anonymous

              You seem to be charging us with special pleading because, in your mind, we are unjustifiably excepting God from the category of things which are in motion. In fact, what we’re doing is simply looking at causal series ordered per se, analysing them, and seeing that they cannot regress infinitely and must terminate in an unmoved prime mover. There is nothing unjustified in any of the reasoning involved in this. It would only be special pleading if we said “everything except God is in motion” as one of the premises of the argument given without further justification. Instead, we show through reasoned argument that causal series ordered per se cannot regress infinitely and must terminate. The fact that this establishes that the prime mover is different to other things doesn’t mean it’s a case of special pleading, because this is a conclusion of the argument and not an unjustified assumption we use as a premise.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >this is a conclusion of the argument and not an unjustified assumption we use as a premise.
                It's part of your premise that there are uncaused things, things not in motion, things not in dependence, otherwise you would not have qualified them to the contrary. You are being circular. You never proved anything. You simply added more and more word salad atop your dogmatic claim in hopes nobody would notice.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                That’s not a premise of the argument though that’s just the conclusion. The argument simply starts with analysing the nature of motion and showing that causal series ordered per se can’t regress infinitely. It doesn’t assume from the outset that there is a prime mover which is unmoved otherwise that would be circular.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >The argument simply starts with analysing the nature of motion
                Fine
                >and showing that causal series ordered per se can’t regress infinitely
                You have failed to prove this in these few days since the thread is up

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      Here's a wholesale refutal of OP's cosmological argument.

      1. Causality: It cannot be presumed that laws of causality as observed are a property of the Universe. It can be arrived through inductive reasoning at best. Which disqualifies them as axioms for a rigorous proof for existence of God.

      a. But presuming that causality does exist....

      2. Infinite regress: The existence of laws of Causality does not logically necessiate the existence of God since chains of causality can go on forever and there's no logical proof that this should not be the case.

      b. But presuming that infinite regress is not possible.....

      3. The Prime Mover: The laws of causality apply to things within the Universe . And since the Universe does not exist within itself, it logically follows that Causality does not necessarily apply to the Universe itself. This means that the Universe can have a beginning without a cause.

      c. But presuming that things outside the Universe are subject to causality....

      4. The Contradiction: If all causality ends at the Prime mover then by (c) mentioned above causality applies to the Prime Mover itself. Which concludes that something caused the Prime mover thus rendering it non-Prime and leading to an infinite regress, which contradicts (b) . This is a contradiction.

      5(Bonus) : The Universe is observed to be non-linear, dynamic and chaotic. Even the initial state of a three body problem cannot be analytically derived from its final state. This means that chain of causalities loop back into themselves. Thus putting a dent on the idea that every event is caused to exist by a Prime mover. (Though this still leaves open the question for "existence" or "being")

      Counter-arguments:

      OP tries to counter the contradiction in (4) by claiming that
      >Everything we can model is derived from something we can't model.
      Since he fails to elaborate further, I presume he's arguing that God is something we cannot "model". He fails to show why God is free from the laws of Causality. And if he's arguing that God is above it then it is a Faith based argument since the proof itself does not conclude that God is above causality by virtue of (c).

      God can either be an entity that can be derived from self evident axioms or it can be an axiom itself which doesn't need explaination and is arrived at through faith or observation. Since we cannot directly observe God, faith remains the only option, since God certainly cannot be necessitated through Prime Mover logic as become evident from 1 - 4.

      Tldr:
      Q E D

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        Solid effortpost.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        >It cannot be presumed that laws of causality as observed are a property of the Universe.
        It can, because the everything in the Universe, and consequently the Universe as the sum total of its parts (how else would we define it?), abides by the laws of causality. If the parts all abide by laws, then so does the whole if the whole is the sum of the parts.
        >The existence of laws of Causality does not logically necessiate the existence of God since chains of causality can go on forever and there's no logical proof that this should not be the case.
        What type of causality? Hierarchical or non-essential? Not that it matters, because as we've already established in this thread, time is non-essential and therefore time has no beginning in time, and the universe which is in time has a beginning in time.
        >And since the Universe does not exist within itself, it logically follows that Causality does not necessarily apply to the Universe itself. This means that the Universe can have a beginning without a cause.
        How can the Universe, something in time, have a beginning without a cause? Are you suggesting that something can magically come from nothing? This is special pleading, an informal fallacy.
        >And since the Universe does not exist within itself
        If the Universe does not exist within itself, ie if the universe is not the sum of its parts but something existing apart from itself ("outside of itself", which would actually be "something outside of something not itself" unless we violate LNC), then it is not the Universe, it is, by definition, God.
        >This means that the Universe can have a beginning without a cause.
        Actually it means that without a cause it is without a beginning.
        >c. But presuming that things outside the Universe are subject to causality....
        Things outside the Universe would not be subject to causality because they would not be part of the causal body, ie part of the whole, because they are either time or not in time.
        > The Universe is observed to be non-linear, dynamic and chaotic
        Au contraire, I have no idea where you've gathered this observation from.
        >He fails to show why God is free from the laws of Causality.
        God does not have a beginning. Besides, it's more akin to "God (or part of God) IS causality", not "God is free from causality", if we had to pick one or the other.

        quod erat demonstrandum.

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          >If the Universe does not exist within itself, ie if the universe is not the sum of its parts but something existing apart from itself ("outside of itself", which would actually be "something outside of something not itself" unless we violate LNC), then it is not the Universe, it is, by definition, God.

          I'll address this one argument since this is actually a valid counter as opposed to all the other attempts at begging the question and stating your opinions as facts.

          Something that is a sum of parts does not necessarily have the properties of those parts. An assembly machine can be built entirely out of gears possessing the quality of roundness yet not be round itself. This is also true for the Universe. The "beginning" of the Universe cannot happen within the Universe. So by logic its an event outside of the Universe and hence does not necessitate that the laws of causality, namely that everything that beguns has a cause, be applicable to it.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >An assembly machine can be built entirely out of gears possessing the quality of roundness yet not be round itself.
            This is incorrect. Insofar as the machine only consists of round gears, it would necessarily be rounded (in the limiting case, the machine would be a single gear, in the limiting case + 1, two gears with perpendicular axes, both of which constitute a spherical roundness). But machines are heterogenous constructs, which do consist of roundness insofar as that roundness is contained within it, but will also consist of its contrary so far as its contrary, rectilinearity, is also contained within it, even if it is just a rectangular covering sheet of metal. So no, the attributes of every part of the whole are necessarily transferred to the attributes of the whole. Your fallacy here is making the assumption that because a whole can contain contraries, therefore the whole must be neither one of these contraries. In actual fact, it can be either one of them, or a mixture of both, depending entirely on the composition and the ratio thereof. Nice try, though.
            >The "beginning" of the Universe cannot happen within the Universe.
            Beginnings and ends happen at every scale, in the universe and the universe as a whole.

            • 3 months ago
              Anonymous

              >But machines are heterogenous constructs, which do consist of roundness insofar as that roundness is contained within it
              Roundness being contained within it is distinct from the machine itself being round.

              >but will also consist of its contrary so far as its contrary, rectilinearity, is also contained within it, even if it is just a rectangular covering sheet of metal.
              A machine does not need rectilinear parts to possess the property of rectilinearity itself.

              >Your fallacy here is making the assumption that because a whole can contain contraries, therefore the whole must be neither one of these contraries.
              I make no such assumptions. But the possibility of it being true renders the proof for God incomplete since causality applying to beginning of the Universe as a whole is never proven.

              Infact if laws causality do not apply to things outside the Universe then the potential to cause effect does not either since it is a property of things within the Universe. If God does not require a cause, then God does not require to create an effect either. Or more precisely God may not possess the potential for it. This is another contradiction since we presume that the beginning of the universe does require a cause, and we defined God to be that cause, yet we are looking for that cause in a space where laws of cause and effect don't even apply. Hence we cannot KNOW that God caused the Universe

              Which leads to the conclusion that God must necessarily be contained within the Universe itself inorder to "cause" it. Ergo the Universe itself is a self organising principle and itself is the God.

              The only way you can counter this is by attributing properties to the concept of God, beyond its definition as a cause based on pure dogma and faith.

              Which is begging the question

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >The "beginning" of the Universe cannot happen within the Universe. So by logic its an event outside of the Universe and hence does not necessitate that the laws of causality, namely that everything that beguns has a cause, be applicable to it.
            /thread
            also based digits

            • 3 months ago
              Anonymous

              So you agree with Kant

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            Right. There seems to not be one in a million people who can conceive of this.

  2. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Yeah, today it's called an inertial frame of reference

  3. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    The Unmoved Mover was not, for Aristotle, a theological principle. It was apart of his physics (though he writes about it in his metaphysics). In Book Lamba, Aristotle says there are fifty-five unmoved movers. Aquinas and Muslim philosophers misinterpreted him for centuries.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      Seethe on gay chud

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      Aristotle believed in one god. This makes gaytheists seethe to no end. There's not a single great atheist thinker. All you have is Russell and other Anglo-israeli "thinkers" with blue checkmarks on Twitter

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        You realize Aristotle gave even less of a shit about religion than atheists, right?

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Aristotle believed in one god. This makes gaytheists seethe to no end.
        I am an atheist and I couldn't care less if Aristotle's God existed. As the other anon has pointed out, his God is little more than a metaphysical principle that Aristotle postulates in order to avoid infinite regress and explain final causality. Aristotle's God didn't create the world, He doesn't care about humanity, you can't pray to him... etc. His existence is practically irrelevant.

      • 3 months ago
        Hello

        >Aristotle believed in one god.
        Sauce?

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      a part

  4. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Retarded medieval age language game tier argument. Not meant to be taken seriously since Galileo.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      >language game tier argument.
      Bait.

  5. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Call it God if you like, but why ascribe anything else to it? Particularly chauvinistically human qualities, intentions, or interests?

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      So simple and irrefutable that it's ignored.

  6. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Refuted by dynamics

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      What dynamcs? Those included in the current Physics that don't explain the behaviour of 95% of the universe including dark matter?

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        >What dynamcs? Those included in the current Physics that don't explain the behaviour of 95% of the universe including dark matter?

        Lol stop talking like some blithering idiot

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      How so?

  7. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    >everything has a cause, which is my volcano demon
    >no, the volcano demon doesn't have a cause himself
    >well he told me so, that's why

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      Only things which have a beginning demand a cause. The universe has a beginning, therefore it demands a cause. That cause can't also have a beginning, or you get an infinite regress of causes. So the most parsimonious thing to do and logically necessary thing to do is to end the regress with one entity, the necessary being (god). So that which begins (the universe) is called contingent entity or being. That which does not begin (god) is called a necessary being or entity. You are making the mistake addressed in this vid

      What the atheist then has to do is argue against the universe having a beginning, which runs in to problems of actual infinities of prior events and infinite temporal regress, and is also contrary to empirical, physical data. If you want to see this argument, which is a cosmological/contingency argument, get carried through perfectly, and watch bertrand russell get humiliated, watch this

      But what created the unmoved mover?

      See the first vid in this post

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        >to avoid an infinite regress of causes I shall dogmatically declare a first cause when I tire of further explanation
        brilliant analysis tommy

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          You have two choices
          >postulate another contingent being which initiated the system and continue infinite regress
          >postulate a necessary being which initiated the system avoid infinite regress
          You want to avoid those infinite regresses in logic by postulating the least amount of entities
          So construct an actual argument from logic
          Premise 1:
          Anything that exists has an explanation of it's existence, either in the necessity of it's own nature or in an external explanation.
          Premise 2:
          The universe has an explanation for it's existence, and that explanation is grounded in a necessary being.
          Premise 3:
          The universe exists
          Premise 4:
          Therefore the universe has and explanation existence from 1 and 3.
          Premise 5:
          Therefore the explanation of the existence of the universe is grounded in a necessary being (from 2 and4).

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            Pure retardation at display

            • 3 months ago
              Anonymous
              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Lol yeah you're right, when Stefan "naggerbrain Moron" Molyneux decides something is not an argument, then we do indeed have an argument.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Still no argument

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                The anon you're responding to here, me, was not the anon you were arguing with earlier by the way. My argument is that you're wrong lol. I'm right. People like Stefan Molyneux and his cultists think they're "bringing back the lost art of logic" or some other nonsense because they cherrypick the most hysterical cases of libtard wokeist nonsense so they get really smug because they genuinely believe themselves to be the last bastion of rationality in an increasingly irrational world.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            You're just moving dogmatic statements around. "The universe has a cause" and "God is the cause"... therefore God is the cause of the universe? Wow just really compelling logic. Yes, if God is real and the universe has a cause, God may have indeed caused the universe. But you're not proving or demonstrating anything to anyone who isn't in your monastery.

            • 3 months ago
              Anonymous

              >"The universe has a cause" and "God is the cause"... therefore God is the cause of the universe?
              That's not the argument. The argument is as stated. The way it works is you pick a premise that I have stated. This is why I clearly wrote it out. You don't make up an argument that I didn't make and impose it on me as if it is my argument.
              >Wow just really compelling logic
              Construct an argument against it instead of making up a strawman.
              >Yes, if God is real and the universe has a cause
              That is not the argument. I don't start with the conclusion and then beg the question.
              >God may have indeed caused the universe. But you're not proving or demonstrating anything to anyone who isn't in your monastery.
              This isn't an argument. You are just wasting time and from your post I don't even think you know what an argument is or how to for a counter argument.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                You're being obtuse and pretentious to boot. Your first premise was everything has a cause. Your second was that there's a necessary being. So where did you get this second premise? From the caverns of your asshole? I have not misrepresented you. Your play-pretend argument is merely that everything has a cause except God because God is the cause without cause because everything has to have a cause and that cause is God because we can't just have things cause other things so there's a thing that has no cause you see, because everything has a cause, and that cause is therefore God, who while uncaused, is necessary to the causation of all contingencies because such things must be caused by a necessary being, which having no contingency is without cause itself, as it is necessarily the cause of all things, since as we have declared all such things are with a cause and that cause is God....
                Did I leave any of your volcano demonology out?

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >You're being obtuse and pretentious to boot
                Not an argument
                >Your first premise was everything has a cause
                No, it wasn't. I wrote it out very clearly.
                Premise 1:
                Anything that exists has an explanation of it's existence, either in the necessity of it's own nature or in an external explanation.
                >Your second was that there's a necessary being
                The second premise is
                Premise 2:
                The universe has an explanation for it's existence, and that explanation is grounded in a necessary being.
                As far as the rest of your post, I am not really seeing an argument against my premises or conclusions, which are really just a version of the leibnizian cosmological.contingency argument that I copied because it is good.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >necessary being
                You keep dodging the problem, which is that this dogmatic bullshitting. The first "premise" is just something we can all observe, that things appear to be caused by other such things. What follows past that is your schizobabble, and if I am not one of your fellow monks it has no relevance.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >either in the necessity of it's own nature
                The universe.

                >The universe has an explanation for it's existence
                It's necessary.

                Yahweh is unnecessary.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >It's necessary
                No, it is not. It began. Things which began are not necessary. And before you try to claim that the universe did not begin, beyond just all available data pointing to the idea that there exist a point in time to which it can be traced back to where the space and time of the universe was booted up, you will also run in to logical problems of infinite temporal regress and having to claim that an actually infinite amount of events have past, despite the fact that events continue to additionally happen, which is a contradiction. You can't add additionally to actual infinities, so the past can not be infinite. This is the big clue that the universe is contingent. It has a temporality constraint. I also didn't say anything about 'yaweh. You are having a plebbit atheist reactionary moment.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >It began.
                No it didn't.

                >Things which began are not necessary.
                Right, the universe is necessary, Yahweh isn't.

                >time of the universe was booted up
                The universe isn't a computer you fucking bugman.

                >infinite temporal regress
                An infinite historical past is not an infinite regress.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            Your axioms are illogically constructed. Premise 3 should come before 2. You're also simply rejecting one of your own premises, that being
            >either in the necessity of its own nature
            and insisting the the universe is grounded in a necessary being instead of its own necessary nature.
            So, not only can you not construct a set of consistent axioms, you can't even follow your own axioms to a logical conclusion.

            • 3 months ago
              Anonymous

              >Your axioms are illogically constructed
              No, they are not
              >Premise 3 should come before 2
              No, it shouldn't
              >and insisting the the universe is grounded in a necessary being instead of its own necessary nature
              The fact that the universe began makes it a contingent being and excludes it from being necessary. It can't have caused itself, because in order to do this, it would have had to have existed before it's own existence. So it is contingent upon another being for it's initiation. The universe could not initiate itself in other words. At this point, you have two choices
              >another contingent being created the universe, in which case you get an infinite regress of contingent beings, or, a single entity which is not contingent, IE did not begin, and therefore needs no explanation for it's existence because things which don't begin don't need causes, as explained in premise one.
              >So, not only can you not construct a set of consistent axioms
              They are consistent. There's nothing contradictory premise 3 is true, the universe does exist. Premise two follows from 1 in that it exists and therefore has an explanation. Premise three sets up for the declaration in premise 4. Read it again excluding premise 3 and you will see the reason for it being there. I thought the same thing when I first saw the argument, but there is a reason for the structure. There is no illogic. You, like everyone else who has attempted, have failed at constructing a counter argument.
              >We assume causality and homogeneity are things - this is absolutely zero evidence for cause and effect, and no argument for its existence beyond saying, "Well, it looks that way to me!
              Really? There's no argument for the fact that you are the effect caused by your parents having sex? There is no argument for the baked loaf of bread being caused by the baker? I will have to disagree there. I addressed this idea here already.

              >Why can't the universe just move itself?
              Because it began. Premise three. The universe can't be it's own cause because it would have had to exist before it's own beginning in order to cause itself. This is illogical. Everything physical has a cause. You have a cause, which is your parents. Your parents have a cause, namely their respective parents. A loaf of bread has a cause, which is the baker. A house has a cause, which is the construction crew. Everything in the physical world/universe has a cause. This is why physical objects are contingent. And this contingency goes right back to the big bang to include the physical universe itself. It doesn't have to begin at the big bang either.

              You are confusing the idea that we can't always declaratively say what the exact mechanism for a particular effect to have happened with the idea that things are not caused at all. You were caused. I was caused. If I hack at a tree with an ax till it falls down, then I have caused the tree to fall. We can argue about what the mechanism is for the tree falling, ie is the world virtual and the tree is caused by a physics engine and calculations, such as when a tree falls in a video game, or it some entity called gravity etc. In both cases, the consciousness choosing to chop the tree, be it the guy controlling the character in the video game, or the consciousness choosing to swing the ax in the physical world, caused the tree to fall. And the ultimate cause for all of these physical events, regardless of the mechanism and details after the first cause, goes back to the initiation of the physical world from the first cause, regardless of the causality hence forth after that cause.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >The universe could not initiate itself
                And why is Yahweh able to do this? This thing you imagined outside of reality must have caused reality, because you've defined it as the cause of reality?

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >And why is Yahweh able to do this?
                If you are asking why the creator can do this, you mis-understand the argument. I have already explained that several times. Starting here

                Only things which have a beginning demand a cause. The universe has a beginning, therefore it demands a cause. That cause can't also have a beginning, or you get an infinite regress of causes. So the most parsimonious thing to do and logically necessary thing to do is to end the regress with one entity, the necessary being (god). So that which begins (the universe) is called contingent entity or being. That which does not begin (god) is called a necessary being or entity. You are making the mistake addressed in this vid

                What the atheist then has to do is argue against the universe having a beginning, which runs in to problems of actual infinities of prior events and infinite temporal regress, and is also contrary to empirical, physical data. If you want to see this argument, which is a cosmological/contingency argument, get carried through perfectly, and watch bertrand russell get humiliated, watch this

                [...]
                See the first vid in this post

                >Only things which have a beginning demand a cause
                The argument is not that everything has a cause. It's that everything that BEGINS TO EXIST demands an explanation for a cause. I explained again here

                >Why can't the universe just move itself?
                Because it began. Premise three. The universe can't be it's own cause because it would have had to exist before it's own beginning in order to cause itself. This is illogical. Everything physical has a cause. You have a cause, which is your parents. Your parents have a cause, namely their respective parents. A loaf of bread has a cause, which is the baker. A house has a cause, which is the construction crew. Everything in the physical world/universe has a cause. This is why physical objects are contingent. And this contingency goes right back to the big bang to include the physical universe itself. It doesn't have to begin at the big bang either.

                and here

                No, it doesn't. Only things which begin demand a cause. See the argument here
                [...]
                And see the beginners mistake you are making in the first vid here
                [...]

                The argument is not that EVERYTHING has a cause it's is that things which begin have a cause.These are contingent entities. The universe began, so it demands an explanation of cause. To avoid multiplying entities beyond necessity, the regress can be ended by postulating only one necessary entity which is eternal (something the universe is not). And so this entity is what in philosophy is called a necessary being or entity.

                here is a vid that explains it as well

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >everything that BEGINS TO EXIST demands an explanation for a cause
                So already you are presuming there are things that don't begin to exist, and let me guess, the thing that doesn't begin to exist is God, who doesn't need a beginning because he doesn't need a beginning because he doesn't need a beginning because he doesn't need a beginning. Your "argument" is "God did it" for which you offer no proof beyond increasingly agitated priestly shrieking about how this is "necessary" to avoid an "infinite regress," a problem in fact caused by believing in a first cause, by wishing that everything must stop.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >that doesn't begin to exist is God
                this is a logical necessity, inherently so. congratulations, you understood the argument. that which caused all but has no cause in of itself is god by definition

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >understood the argument. that which caused all but has no cause in of itself
                There's literally no argument. You're just declaring this. Purely dogmatic. Smells like shit.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >the thing that doesn't begin to exist is God, who doesn't need a beginning because he doesn't need a beginning because he doesn't need a beginning because he doesn't need a beginning.

                This really is the long and short of it. There's absolutely no rational explaination for why the God doesn't need a cause or why the Universe cannot be an uncaused cause itself.

                >inb4 God doesn't have a cause because I said so

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >This really is the long and short of it. There's absolutely no rational explaination for why the God doesn't need a cause or why the Universe cannot be an uncaused cause itself.
                Yes there is. It's here

                Only things which have a beginning demand a cause. The universe has a beginning, therefore it demands a cause. That cause can't also have a beginning, or you get an infinite regress of causes. So the most parsimonious thing to do and logically necessary thing to do is to end the regress with one entity, the necessary being (god). So that which begins (the universe) is called contingent entity or being. That which does not begin (god) is called a necessary being or entity. You are making the mistake addressed in this vid

                What the atheist then has to do is argue against the universe having a beginning, which runs in to problems of actual infinities of prior events and infinite temporal regress, and is also contrary to empirical, physical data. If you want to see this argument, which is a cosmological/contingency argument, get carried through perfectly, and watch bertrand russell get humiliated, watch this

                [...]
                See the first vid in this post

                The universe can't be it's own cause.
                I talked about that here

                >It's necessary
                No, it is not. It began. Things which began are not necessary. And before you try to claim that the universe did not begin, beyond just all available data pointing to the idea that there exist a point in time to which it can be traced back to where the space and time of the universe was booted up, you will also run in to logical problems of infinite temporal regress and having to claim that an actually infinite amount of events have past, despite the fact that events continue to additionally happen, which is a contradiction. You can't add additionally to actual infinities, so the past can not be infinite. This is the big clue that the universe is contingent. It has a temporality constraint. I also didn't say anything about 'yaweh. You are having a plebbit atheist reactionary moment.

                and here

                >They would claim that God doesn't require a cause because they define it that way
                That is not the argument. The argument is one from avoiding an infinite regress of contingent entities. So we want to avoid 'who created god then, and who created the god who created god then' regress. This can be avoided by by postulating a single entity which is beginningless, ie uncaused. So once the past finitude of the universe and thus contingent-ness of the universe is established, which can be done through both cosmological evidence and through logical means, such as the impossibility of an infinite temporal regress , then the the choice is between an infinite chain of contingent causes, or a single entity which sets forth the contingent entities, of which the universe and physicality are included. So it's not just a case of arbitrarily defining it that way. This definition arises from logical necessity in trying to avoid infinite regress of contingent entities.
                >The cosmological argument presumes that the Universe is a set of cause/effect chains that terminate at a first cause. But reality is dynamic and the existence of non-linear systems falsifies the premise of cosmological argument.
                No it does not. Once the universe is caused, the unfolding of events is irrelevant. You CAN construct one based on deterministic event causality, but it is not necessary. The salient fact is the contingent-ness of the universe.
                >The argument relies on the premise that causality exists as a feature of the objects and events its associated with
                No, it does not. It relies on the contingency of the universe. The cosmological argument is one from contingency ultimately. If you want to hear a magnificent one and see bertrand russell get demolished by copelston, watch this

                >If the argument was valid
                There is no if about it. This one here,
                [...]
                for instance, is undefeatable
                >In conclus
                Nothing you have said is particularly even relevant to the argument, let alone does it defeat it.

                It would have to exist before it's own beginning to cause itself. This is illogical.

            • 3 months ago
              Anonymous

              the second part of this

              >Your axioms are illogically constructed
              No, they are not
              >Premise 3 should come before 2
              No, it shouldn't
              >and insisting the the universe is grounded in a necessary being instead of its own necessary nature
              The fact that the universe began makes it a contingent being and excludes it from being necessary. It can't have caused itself, because in order to do this, it would have had to have existed before it's own existence. So it is contingent upon another being for it's initiation. The universe could not initiate itself in other words. At this point, you have two choices
              >another contingent being created the universe, in which case you get an infinite regress of contingent beings, or, a single entity which is not contingent, IE did not begin, and therefore needs no explanation for it's existence because things which don't begin don't need causes, as explained in premise one.
              >So, not only can you not construct a set of consistent axioms
              They are consistent. There's nothing contradictory premise 3 is true, the universe does exist. Premise two follows from 1 in that it exists and therefore has an explanation. Premise three sets up for the declaration in premise 4. Read it again excluding premise 3 and you will see the reason for it being there. I thought the same thing when I first saw the argument, but there is a reason for the structure. There is no illogic. You, like everyone else who has attempted, have failed at constructing a counter argument.
              >We assume causality and homogeneity are things - this is absolutely zero evidence for cause and effect, and no argument for its existence beyond saying, "Well, it looks that way to me!
              Really? There's no argument for the fact that you are the effect caused by your parents having sex? There is no argument for the baked loaf of bread being caused by the baker? I will have to disagree there. I addressed this idea here already.
              [...]
              You are confusing the idea that we can't always declaratively say what the exact mechanism for a particular effect to have happened with the idea that things are not caused at all. You were caused. I was caused. If I hack at a tree with an ax till it falls down, then I have caused the tree to fall. We can argue about what the mechanism is for the tree falling, ie is the world virtual and the tree is caused by a physics engine and calculations, such as when a tree falls in a video game, or it some entity called gravity etc. In both cases, the consciousness choosing to chop the tree, be it the guy controlling the character in the video game, or the consciousness choosing to swing the ax in the physical world, caused the tree to fall. And the ultimate cause for all of these physical events, regardless of the mechanism and details after the first cause, goes back to the initiation of the physical world from the first cause, regardless of the causality hence forth after that cause.

              was directed at another anon
              That is to say this part was
              not to you
              >We assume causality and homogeneity are things - this is absolutely zero evidence for cause and effect, and no argument for its existence beyond saying, "Well, it looks that way to me!
              Really? There's no argument for the fact that you are the effect caused by your parents having sex? There is no argument for the baked loaf of bread being caused by the baker? I will have to disagree there. I addressed this idea here already.

              >Why can't the universe just move itself?
              Because it began. Premise three. The universe can't be it's own cause because it would have had to exist before it's own beginning in order to cause itself. This is illogical. Everything physical has a cause. You have a cause, which is your parents. Your parents have a cause, namely their respective parents. A loaf of bread has a cause, which is the baker. A house has a cause, which is the construction crew. Everything in the physical world/universe has a cause. This is why physical objects are contingent. And this contingency goes right back to the big bang to include the physical universe itself. It doesn't have to begin at the big bang either.

              (You)
              You are confusing the idea that we can't always declaratively say what the exact mechanism for a particular effect to have happened with the idea that things are not caused at all. You were caused. I was caused. If I hack at a tree with an ax till it falls down, then I have caused the tree to fall. We can argue about what the mechanism is for the tree falling, ie is the world virtual and the tree is caused by a physics engine and calculations, such as when a tree falls in a video game, or it some entity called gravity etc. In both cases, the consciousness choosing to chop the tree, be it the guy controlling the character in the video game, or the consciousness choosing to swing the ax in the physical world, caused the tree to fall. And the ultimate cause for all of these physical events, regardless of the mechanism and details after the first cause, goes back to the initiation of the physical world from the first cause, regardless of the causality hence forth after that cause.

            • 3 months ago
              Anonymous

              I did forget to write the conclusion though. I am surprised nobody even addressed that. That's the one thing I did wrong.
              Conclusion: Therefore God (a necessary being) exists.

              >mistakes in reasoning
              How about "mistakes in using prophetic utterances as logical arguments"? Where did you get the idea that some things begin and some things do not?

              > Where did you get the idea that some things begin and some things do not?
              It's not my idea. From seeing things begin. Humans for instance begin. A human life begins. A sandwich begins. A virtual world begins with an influx of information at which point virtual time and space of the reality begin. The construction of a house begins. Where did you get the idea that physical things DON'T begin? And extrapolate back and ask why would you special plead that the physical universe ITSELF did not begin?

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >From seeing things begin.
                Listen Satan, you can't go from "seeing things begin" to "there's a thing without a beginning that is the beginning" unless you're going to show it to the rest of the class. If all you're going to do in terms of demonstration is "just trust me, I'm the wise and powerful Yahweh," why should I entertain your imaginary, beginningless beginning to things? What was insufficient about observing an endless causality of things such that you had to declare a stop to it? Do you perhaps dislike reality and wish for an exit ramp?

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                I explained that here

                >Because it's made up
                It is not. I did not make up logic.
                >We can observe a tree grows from an acorn if it is given dirt and water and sunlight and time and space and many other such causal factors
                Yeah, because that is a physical phenomenon, so you can use empirical methods and observation. We are talking about what caused the physical world. This cause is by definition not physical and not in the physical world, so you can't use this for of epistemic justification. That's why I used a logical argument as opposed to appealing to the sensible.
                >but where in this is the astrally uncaused cause
                It's not astral. The stars are part of the universe. They are contingent, like all physical objects. We are talking about the necessary cause of those things
                > from the transcendental reality of non-contingent being?
                Yes, this part is correct. Something can't be both transcendental and astral though. So you phrased that poorly. So something transcendental would necessarily not be observable by the senses. The transcendental IS non-physical.
                >It's not there at all. You're declaring it just-so and then harrumphing that anyone who disagrees with your revelation is illogical
                No. I constructed a logical argument. Logic, by the way, is also not observable through the senses. It is also non-physical and transcendental. Do you deny logic exists because you can't observe it like a tree growing from an acorn? There are different forms of epistemic justification besides observing with the senses.
                >Well if the whole point of "logic" is to obfuscate dogmatic jibberish then I suppose being illogical is an imperative for those who love truth.
                I have not mentioned religion or dogma in this thread.

                posting a video by a voicecracking teenager feeling personally insulted that people are not awestruck by the unmoved mover and expecting people to take you seriously is pretty fucking stupid. You mention the amazing atheist but you are undergoing your teenager biblethump phase where you behave the exact same way as atheists going out of their way to debate christians, except of course that your way requires far more dogma and fallacy since you are attempting to argue in favor of the existence of one single specific god using a philosophical argument of an unmoved mover with no necessary attributes beyond being able to create the universe and acting as if its unrefutable to boot.

                You clearly believe just saying the universe has a beginning so it needs someone to be there since before that beginning and that is the unmoved mover is all you need, except to western theists the unmoved mover isnt a philosophical concept, its YHWH. Which obviously is faith based, meaning that your previous appeal to philosophy and logic was playing pretend as no matter how you twist and distort philosophy and logic it will NEVER end up telling you that there is only one god and that god is YHWH, or "double truth" as the christian philosophers liked calling it when they realized they were not actually arguing for the existence of their own god in particular.

                Btw the atheist philosopher at the end of your video wasnt arguing against dawkins, he was saying his complete dismissal was alienating to christians. In other words he was arguing for making a response like the ones youve been getting in this thread instead of just calling you a fucking idiot and go on with their life assuming people like you either immerse yourself in faith and dogma instead of acting like you have no idea what those things are, most likely because blind faith is not something youre actually capable of even if your god explicitly demands it.

                It's not my video. The video creator is inspiring philosophy.
                >You clearly believe just saying the universe has a beginning so it needs someone to be there since before that beginning and that is the unmoved mover is all you need, except to western theists the unmoved mover isnt a philosophical concept, its YHWH
                This is irrelevant. I am not arguing from 'western philosophy'. I presented an argument and you fail to refute it. You are just appealing to emotion by bringing specific religions into it.
                >Btw the atheist philosopher at the end of your video wasnt arguing against dawkins, he was saying his complete dismissal was alienating to christians. In other words he was arguing for making a response like the ones youve been getting in this thread instead of just calling you a fucking idiot and go on with their life assuming people like you either immerse yourself in faith and dogma instead of acting like you have no idea what those things are, most likely because blind faith is not something your actually capable of even if your god explicitly demands it.
                Irrelevant to this thread. I am not the guy in the video. I am not arguing from a particular religion. I don't belong to any religious organization which professes a dogma and my argument is explicitly logical, not dogmatic.
                I just used this version of leibnizian cosmo argument because it is sound.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        Cope

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          See here

          You have two choices
          >postulate another contingent being which initiated the system and continue infinite regress
          >postulate a necessary being which initiated the system avoid infinite regress
          You want to avoid those infinite regresses in logic by postulating the least amount of entities
          So construct an actual argument from logic
          Premise 1:
          Anything that exists has an explanation of it's existence, either in the necessity of it's own nature or in an external explanation.
          Premise 2:
          The universe has an explanation for it's existence, and that explanation is grounded in a necessary being.
          Premise 3:
          The universe exists
          Premise 4:
          Therefore the universe has and explanation existence from 1 and 3.
          Premise 5:
          Therefore the explanation of the existence of the universe is grounded in a necessary being (from 2 and4).

          Construct an actual argument

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Construct an actual argument

            But what created the unmoved mover?

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        I think the truth is far more likely that the universe(s) is born, destroyed, and reborn over and over again infinitely. Unimaginable quadrillions of years have passed until this moment, and after it will pass untold quadrillions more and more. I think this could permit the existence of something like a God or Intelligence, but it certainly ain't the omnibenevolent Christian God, that God is a feel-good cope, pure catharsis. I'm not trying to say I personally look down on anyone who believes in the omnibenevolent God, but I wish they would stop trying to tie faith and scientific inquiry together, because one is irrational and the other rational.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        >you can't have an infinite regress because... you just can't okay?!?!?!?!?!??!

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          Not that anon, but this is a point in Aristotle that Aquinas is using that goes unsaid. In Aristotle, all causes must be traceable back to one of the 47-55 Gods at some point. Because they are eternal (they move in circles, you see) and unchanging (because they are made out of Quintessence) they are constantly pulling causality up towards themselves. The universe, while eternal in its existence, is in a constant state of flux. Because all occurrences have four causes (material, formal, efficient, and final), a chain of everything can, eventually, through its branches backwards in time, be traced back to the Gods.

          Aquinas has to argue for dumb shit like monotheism and genital mutilation, however, so he ends up hamstrung and can't make the obvious answer of "the universe is constantly in a flux fueled by the divine", which solves the problem that anon is seething over.

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          An infinite regress would just mean an infinite amount of creator gods. I myself want to be logical so I endeavour to avoid postulating these regresses.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >uhhh I can't figure out any further causes so this must be the bottom
            you are as bad as the bing bong theory atheists you just happen to worship the "first cause" whereas they do nothing

            • 3 months ago
              Anonymous

              >you are as bad as the bing bong theory atheists you just happen to worship the "first cause" whereas they do nothing
              I didn't say anything about worshipping anything. You are dragging your own emotional baggage about particular gods and religions into the argument. I have purposely minimized the claims about the attributes and nature and characteristics of the postulated creator in order to avoid such religious debates. My argument does not depend on the big bang either. Any reality which is temporal will run into the same infinite temporal regress. So a universe booted up with apparent age would also need, obviously, some entity to push the run/enter button to start the reality. It works with young earth creationism as well.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >I have purposely minimized the claims about the attributes and nature and characteristics of the postulated creator in order to avoid such religious debates
                Because you are dishonest! You are arguing for a transcendental uncaused cause of all (caused) things, per the basis of "caused things have cause." And you've only introduced the uncaused cause to halt an "infinite regress" because for some dogmatic reason there has to be some thing which is not contingent or caused. If you think it's "emotional" to oppose baseless claims you are some sort of priestly pilpul pusher.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >An infinite regress would just mean an infinite amount of creator gods

            No it doesn't. You don't know what an infinite regress is.

            • 3 months ago
              Anonymous

              >No it doesn't. You don't know what an infinite regress is.
              Yes, I do. In this case it means an infinite regress of contingent entities. So a 'if god created the universe, then who created god, and who created the god that created the god....) situation. This is the standard issue low IQ plebbit/fedora atheist argument that goobers make and they think they are saying something profound. See here

              But what created the unmoved mover?

              the very first post. This anon no doubt felt real smart after making this post, as if no one had ever thought of it. I posted this video

              here

              Only things which have a beginning demand a cause. The universe has a beginning, therefore it demands a cause. That cause can't also have a beginning, or you get an infinite regress of causes. So the most parsimonious thing to do and logically necessary thing to do is to end the regress with one entity, the necessary being (god). So that which begins (the universe) is called contingent entity or being. That which does not begin (god) is called a necessary being or entity. You are making the mistake addressed in this vid

              What the atheist then has to do is argue against the universe having a beginning, which runs in to problems of actual infinities of prior events and infinite temporal regress, and is also contrary to empirical, physical data. If you want to see this argument, which is a cosmological/contingency argument, get carried through perfectly, and watch bertrand russell get humiliated, watch this

              [...]
              See the first vid in this post

              To illustrate that. In the video the video maker show clips of low IQ youtube atheists like styxhexenhammer and josolyn glenn and the amazing atheist making this pleb argument and thinking they are smart. Then he explains why it misunderstands the argument.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >So a 'if god created the universe

                You cannot presume that if we are talking about an infinite regress here. So infinite gods are not needed. Just infinite contingent entities

                >This anon no doubt felt real smart after making this post,
                That anon doesn't have to be smart. The cosmological argument is just so bad that it is this easily refuted.

                >This is the standard issue low IQ plebbit/fedora atheist argument that goobers make and they think they are saying something profound.

                Atheists are not atheists because cosmological argument is refuted. They are atheists because the existence of God is never demonstrated. Infact, if you believe in God solely based on this line of reasoning then you are the true midwit here.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                posting a video by a voicecracking teenager feeling personally insulted that people are not awestruck by the unmoved mover and expecting people to take you seriously is pretty fucking stupid. You mention the amazing atheist but you are undergoing your teenager biblethump phase where you behave the exact same way as atheists going out of their way to debate christians, except of course that your way requires far more dogma and fallacy since you are attempting to argue in favor of the existence of one single specific god using a philosophical argument of an unmoved mover with no necessary attributes beyond being able to create the universe and acting as if its unrefutable to boot.

                You clearly believe just saying the universe has a beginning so it needs someone to be there since before that beginning and that is the unmoved mover is all you need, except to western theists the unmoved mover isnt a philosophical concept, its YHWH. Which obviously is faith based, meaning that your previous appeal to philosophy and logic was playing pretend as no matter how you twist and distort philosophy and logic it will NEVER end up telling you that there is only one god and that god is YHWH, or "double truth" as the christian philosophers liked calling it when they realized they were not actually arguing for the existence of their own god in particular.

                Btw the atheist philosopher at the end of your video wasnt arguing against dawkins, he was saying his complete dismissal was alienating to christians. In other words he was arguing for making a response like the ones youve been getting in this thread instead of just calling you a fucking idiot and go on with their life assuming people like you either immerse yourself in faith and dogma instead of acting like you have no idea what those things are, most likely because blind faith is not something youre actually capable of even if your god explicitly demands it.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                I would unironically respect this idiot more if was was infact a christlarper. At least that way there would be some greater context to his misguided beliefs other than him being a total retard

                But what created the unmoved mover?

                /thread

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >I am too retarded to understand anything therefore everyone else is too

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >gets his entire worldview refuted by a single sentence LULZ first post

                It never began for brainlets

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                You don't understand the idea and refuse to think about it because you associate it with other ideas you don't like. There is no thought process behind any of your posts, you never learned how to think about any subject. Your environment is set up to program you and make sure you never think. Teaching you the basics would be counter-productive to the forces that own you.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                This is just a roundabout attempt at projection on your part. Please grow up a little bit and learn to actually think critically and apply your mind before you start debating adults.

                Literally everyone here has pointed out the glaring flaws in your arguments yet you fail to recognize or admit them precisely because you:-
                >refuse to think about it because you associate it with other ideas you don't like.

                You are nothing more than just another 98iq midwit kid who thinks he's got it all figured out. That you can figure out the nature of cosmology and existence by shitting badlu thought out arguments from the darkness of your basement. Your belief in the rational infallibility of your asspull "logic" is just as dogmatic as your belief in a deity. And the same has been pointed out again and again in this thread.

                Ultimately, the bottom line is you don't have a logical response to what this anon asked

                But what created the unmoved mover?

                And that's where it all ends

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >you don't have a logical response to what this anon asked
                It's covered by the idea, addressed directly by it. That you think this is some kind of gotcha means you don't understand the idea even on a surface level. You actively avoid trying and make these pointless empty posts instead.
                Everything we can describe obeys causality. Either you have to suddenly accept infinite regress which in all other cases is a result of error or accept that the regress ends in something beyond logic and causality. Something not subject to the rules we commonly think everything must obey.
                What's even the alternative to logic being derived from something beyond logic? The rules defined themselves based on the rules they defined? You don't think. You don't even try. All you have is emotional triggers.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Everything we can describe obeys causality
                except the thing you're describing as outside of causality...

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                And I'm not adding any attributes to it so far you mindless shithead. It's defined by the necessity for such a phenomena. You are unable to disconnect the actual statements made from completely separate ideas because you don't grasp basic logic. You only operate using these vague, easily manipulated emotional associations.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >not adding any attributes to it
                >It's defined by the necessity for such a phenomena
                Do you think other people are as dumb as you are? You've made something up here and want to pass it off as some shared fact we can agree on without evidence. If that's how you operate, fine. Can I interest you in buying a bridge in Brooklyn?

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >It's covered by the idea, addressed directly by it.
                You've failed to demonstrate this consistently

                >Everything we can describe obeys causality.
                Other anons have pointed out that this is not necessarily the case but I'll entertain it for the sake.

                >Either you have to suddenly accept infinite regress which in all other cases is a result of error
                And you've failed to demonstrate what that error is.

                >regress ends in something beyond logic and causality. Something not subject to the rules we commonly think everything must obey.
                This is pure speculation. I know you want to badly believe that you've made some logical point here. But this is actually no different from a kid positing that his broken tooth dissapeared so the tooth fairy must've taken it. I'm sure it makes all the logical sense in the kids head too. Who could've taken the tooth if not the tooth fairy? Isn't that what tooth fairy does by logical definition? You don't understand how deductive reasoning works. You can't just build axioms and then proceed to butcher them in your own system. The moment you argue that things outside of causality and logic can exist, you basically abandon logic itself.

                At which point it doesn't matter if you call it the "first cause" or "Volcano Demon" or "John Travolta". You're trying to use reason to prove something inherently unreasonable. And then you're confused why your logic fails at the first step.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Continued....

                As this anon pointed out,

                If all of your positions are outside of what we can empirically know and discuss, and require me to place faith in your dogmatic utterances to proceed with your "argument", and you've never established any reason for me to accept your astrally-sourced "logic," why do I care what you think? I hope this has been enlightening for lurkers.

                the argument does not come from a position of logic. It comes from a position of faith. We are being asked to have faith that a single unmoved mover that is beyond logic and reason is somehow responsible for setting everything else in motion. Yet the pretend play logic used to derive this entity, sets as law the same axioms which this entity violates. At which point its not logic but faith that is keeping the belief in this illogical entity alive

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Other anons have pointed out that this is not necessarily the case
                No they have not. That you believe this is disputable demonstrates you have no clue how to build any argument about anything. You don't think.
                >And you've failed to demonstrate what that error is.
                I don't have to but I still did in the following line. Basic logic says there's an unmoved mover. Stating that infinite regress is a better model just because is abandoning all rules reason in this one case because you're triggered by what reason says.
                >muh tooth fairy
                Completely incapable of saying anything except invoking these pathetic emotional associations.
                >The moment you argue that things outside of causality and logic can exist, you basically abandon logic itself.
                According to you but not according to the guy that defined formal logic or anyone that actually applies logic in their lives.
                Saying the rules of logic can define themselves based on themselves is abandoning logic. Circular definitions are not definitions.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Stating that infinite regress is a better model just because is abandoning all rules reason
                And yet again, you've failed to demonstrate what you say. You accuse everyone else of not thinking or being emotional. Yet your entire reasoning for this point is "I dun lyk it, duh"

                >Completely incapable of saying anything except invoking these pathetic emotional associations.
                Its a good metaphor for what you are trying to do here. Starting with a faith argument, and shoehorning your preferred conclusions to your axioms with no rhyme or reason.

                >Saying the rules of logic can define themselves based on themselves is abandoning logic
                >God is an uncaused cause that can define itself based on itself

                HE HE HE HE HE

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Starting with a faith argument
                You keep saying shit like this but nothing you're saying is consistent with how logic works. You're not appealing to anything I can recreate like a logical structure like Aristotle did, all you have is your own emotional biases, that this basic logic is somehow "like" the tooth fairy. No hint of any thought process, you don't even try.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                But I'm not trying to create anything. I'm just pointing out the logical fallacy in your argument (which the first post did anyway). And all I see as a consequence is infinite seethe and cope.

                You can't defy rules of logic, act like a retard and then ask us to believe that your system is perfectly logical because you said so. Even though the glaring flaws are being presented to you again and again. Petulant child

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >I'm just pointing out the logical fallacy
                You don't even know what words mean, what fallacy? You presented infinite regress as some kind of solution, as if it invalidates the idea of the prime mover somehow. Then instead of making the slightest attempt to clarify what you're saying you keep ranting about tooth fairies, demonstrating the point that you only think in emotional associations. You don't grasp the logic presented or any logic so you can't begin to critique it or provide alternative perspectives.
                >You can't defy rules of logic
                Why do you think you know anything about logic? You never applied it in your life in any context. You never used it and don't understand the absolute basics as laid out by the originators of formal logic. You can't present anything I can recreate as a logical structure.
                >because you said so
                It's what basic logic demands. The alternative you're championing without being aware of it (or anything else since you have no conscious thought) is the idea that logic defines itself based on itself, that the rules are defined by the rules.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Everyone consider this:

                Einstein built the Special Theory of Relativity based on two axioms that were observable in nature.

                1. No object can accelerate to faster than the speed of light
                2. There does not exist an absolute frame of reference only in which the speed of light is C.

                Now imagine that starting with these axioms Einstein builds a Physics in which he, WITHOUT encountering any contradictions with his axioms, proves that certain objects in fact can accelerate to faster than light and an absolute frame of reference does exist. Imagine the shitshow.

                This is the sheer level of retardation we are dealing with here. How can you built a physics where your fundamental assumption that nothing travels faster than light is contradicted within the theory itself. Any sane person would see it as a sign of faulty logic and faulty physics.

                If you assume as a law of nature that nothing can travel faster than light. And then posit that things faster than light do exist but we just can't observe them, then you are making an argument based on FAITH. And if you try to ground this faith in a physical system where nothing indeed can travel faster than light you encounter a contradiction.

                This is logic 101 people.

                You have amply demonstrated that you fail logic 101. This is something they teach in high school. Read more, try to develop a bit more humility and come back later

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >This is something they teach in high school
                You're simply lying. You have no fucking clue.

                Everyone consider this:

                Einstein built the Special Theory of Relativity based on two axioms that were observable in nature.

                1. No object can accelerate to faster than the speed of light
                2. There does not exist an absolute frame of reference only in which the speed of light is C.

                Now imagine that starting with these axioms Einstein builds a Physics in which he, WITHOUT encountering any contradictions with his axioms, proves that certain objects in fact can accelerate to faster than light and an absolute frame of reference does exist. Imagine the shitshow.

                This is the sheer level of retardation we are dealing with here. How can you built a physics where your fundamental assumption that nothing travels faster than light is contradicted within the theory itself. Any sane person would see it as a sign of faulty logic and faulty physics.

                If you assume as a law of nature that nothing can travel faster than light. And then posit that things faster than light do exist but we just can't observe them, then you are making an argument based on FAITH. And if you try to ground this faith in a physical system where nothing indeed can travel faster than light you encounter a contradiction.

                This is logic 101 people.

                All you can do is make up endless analogies that aren't in any way analogous, demonstrating over and over you don't even grasp the idea you're trying to critique.
                In your einstein analogy a system/model is derived from axioms. The parts of reality we can model like what einstein describes rest on axioms, trace the chain for any model of anything back far enough and eventually we will reach fundamental and irreducible causal forces. Claiming everything including whatever defines logic is reducible to logic and describable is circular logic.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                You are very good at coping and seething and blurting out words without offering counter argument it seems. Tends to happen at the peak of Dunny Kruger.

                >The parts of reality we can model like what einstein describes rest on axioms
                Just like what you were trying to do. Except you failed since your conclusions did not logically follow from your premises, proven by the fact that those conclusions go on to contradict the axioms.

                There is simply no counter to the fundamental logical rule that a deductive line of reasoning cannot produce conclusions that render its premise false.

                >Claiming everything including whatever defines logic is reducible to logic and describable is circular logic.
                >God is an uncaused cause that is reducible to nothing but itself and describable only by itself. Btw this is 100% true and not circular logic because...... it just is OK?

                ha ha ha ha ha

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Except you failed since your conclusions did not logically follow from your premises
                Point out exactly one example and then maybe we'll take you seriously. At this point it's just you screeching that he made a logical error, with no evidence for it.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Point out exactly one example and then maybe we'll take you seriously

                Sure. The conclusion that an unmoved mover exists does not follow from the axiom that everything has a cause. The line of reasoning doesn't follow.

                Infact the conclusion contradicts the axiom that everything has a cause. Hence its not just illogical but inconsistent too.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                It does follow. Why can't you say anything except "no" retard?

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                What else there is to say? I can come up with any illogical pseudo babble and call it logical. I can claim that I slept in my bedroom and woke up in my sofa because aliens abducted me in the night. Its a leap of logic, just like you are making by assuming that causality requires a prime mover. All one can say to this is "no you are stupid"

                (Btw thanks for ignoring the part where I actually did you that you conclusion is illogical. It seems you are not just stupid but dishonest too. Are you trolling?)

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Again you keep making up these long irrelevant stories.
                >can claim that I slept in my bedroom and woke up in my sofa because
                >because
                Any statement you make will rest on assumptions. Eventually your descriptions will need to appeal to something you can't describe.
                The principle isn't just because you're retarded. It stands no matter how smart the intelligence trying to create the description is.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >The conclusion that an unmoved mover exists does not follow from the axiom that everything has a cause.
                The conclusion is that that without a beginning does not have a cause, and because the universe has a beginning therefore it has a cause. And that which does not have a cause nor a beginning would be what we call God. You're just misrepresenting his argument, and not even (mis)quoting him to boot.
                >Infact the conclusion contradicts the axiom that everything has a cause.
                This is not an axiom. His axiom was "everything that begins to exist has a cause."

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >the universe has a beginning
                You do not know that.

                >His axiom was "everything that begins to exist has a cause."
                And I guess we can make an exception for God as a thing which doesn't have a beginning because.....I guess faith again. How do you gain that knowledge?

                I suggest Hume and Kant as essential readings given what is presented here

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >I guess faith again
                Seriously how can you get this deranged? There has to be some seriously traumatic history there.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Oh hiding from the argument again like a coward? Is excanging insults on the internet all you are good for?

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Logic demands an irreducible axiom. It has nothing to do with faith.

                >you're apparently too dumb to explore anything
                Tommy, no matter how many times you tell me God ate all those cookies I'm not going to believe you. He doesn't live here. He doesn't have keys to the house. I'm told he likes fumes from roasted animal carcasses burned in Jerusalem anyway.

                >God
                Read your posts back. Is there even a single one where you don't rely completely on braindead programmed emotional associations like this? You can't stop because you know it's all you have.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >braindead programmed emotional associations
                The first cause / prime mover is the most braindead of all. It's like not knowing who your great great great grandfather was, and deciding that your great great grandfather must have had no parents himself. Sorry for being so emotional, I do tear up when I see the disabled. It's just so very sad

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >It's like
                Again you can't face reality so you have to make up stories. I'm not invested in an outcome unlike you, just honest inquiry. Following up the conclusions of premises. You present no alternative premises so you apparently think it's preferable to just not think about things. That really is almost by definition the dumbest possible position.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >you can't face reality so you have to make up stories
                Tommy, I have been saying this to you all along. It's time to grow up. I know God didn't eat those cookies. Next time only have one per day.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                You don't think it says anything about you that you're incapable of making any post that's not some weird irrelevant fantasy story?

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >weird irrelevant fantasy story
                you mean like an uncaused cause?

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                What's the alternative? How do you model reality? Is it preferable to just not think?

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                The alternative is that you're entirely wrong about the nature of caused things, to say nothing of an uncaused thing, which assumes you had a good definition for causality to begin with such that you could carve out an opposite version of it

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                So just "no" and "stop thinking".
                All I have access to is logic and that demands causality. You're suddenly undermining logic when it doesn't suit you but you use it for everything including this pathetic attempt to undermine it.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >You're suddenly undermining logic
                You can't just observe that things have causes and then say caused things have causes therefore an uncaused thing is their ultimate cause. If that's "logic" then sign me up for nonsense as at least it has some efficacy

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                You deliberately choose redundant wording to ridicule, you're working hard to avoid grasping any meaning. Why not try for a second not being a completely deranged retard?

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >You deliberately choose redundant wording to ridicule
                I'm sorry, is "God did it" better? It's not more or less correct because of word choice. Actually, if that IS how it works, silence is probably the best explanation.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                We don't know any attributes of the irreducible based on the logic presented.
                God is described as the irreducible root cause but that's a completely separate claim. So far in this post it's a matter of definition. As soon as I add attributes to this God I'm conceiving of then you can call me out on those claims. Instead of doing that you make up fantasies and behave like the most pathetic retard imaginable.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >As soon as I add attributes to this God I'm conceiving of then you can call me out on those claims
                This is pilpul. A first cause or a prime mover or a god or a big bang are all the same. A latrine by any other name smells just as bad

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >This is pilpul.
                Addressing separate claims is not pilpul. This really is an example of you not being able to think in any terms except emotional associations. Try thinking about this point, there really is no other possible explanation for you being this confused. You really are illiterate if you can't separate the actual text from your vague associations.
                >A first cause or a prime mover or a god or a big bang are all the same.
                The big bang is a temporal physical event. A god implies a million claims that I'm not making.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                You are merely shuffling vocabulary words because you have no proof for your claim. That's all you've done the whole thread. I do have a bridge to sell you, but if you're not interested can you suggest ways I might better advertise? You sound like a smart guy and I want to make the sale. I've been having trouble and you're good with this logic stuff right?

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >You are merely shuffling vocabulary words
                I'm approaching the idea from different angles in the hope that some hint of understanding and sincerity gets triggered in you.
                What are you still confused about? Can you actually put any hint of a thought process that's not these shitty r/atheist memes into words? Are you capable of interacting with people like a sincere thinking person?

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >What are you still confused about?
                Where's the beef? I ordered a hamburger 200 posts ago. Where's my unbroiled broiler?

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                At one point you'd have to make peace with the fact that you are just dealing with an internet retard who can't come up with counter arguments besides making snarky comments about everyone but him not being able to think and about his misguided belief in the infallibility of his "logic" even when presented with counter arguments that he cannot argue against

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                I am doing a valuable service. Mainly post from my toilet myself actually.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Its the bed for me. 😉

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Is it preferable to just not think?

                Ironic since you don't even lack the ability to discern logic 101 flaws in your argument. Something 9th grade math students can do

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >You do not know that.
                I do, because everything in time according to the nature of time has a beginning and an end, otherwise it would not be in time. ("The Universe" by the way is an abstract term; if we redefine it to "being beginningless" then it is the same as God, but it's also no longer the same as what most people conceive of as "The Universe" because it would no longer be situated in time and thence contingency (being no longer modifiable either by external agents or "elements" of itself, it would be either/both a partless unity and a wholeless multiplicity, both of which would be eternal per se, which is not what we usually mean by "The Universe.") ).
                >And I guess we can make an exception for God as a thing which doesn't have a beginning because
                There is no exception being made. All that's said is Whatever has a beginning has a cause, which is practically tautological, and therefore The Universe is not self-sufficient, because it has a beginning and thus a cause. And if it is not self-sufficient then there must be something that is self-sufficient which gives it existence, because otherwise it would not exist ("ex nihilo nihil fit").
                >I suggest Hume and Kant as essential readings given what is presented here
                I've read them both, they are not very convincing of anything. Kant is especially weak, Hume at least has a minor point, although nothing ultimately confounding, with the problem of induction, which is ultimately just a scientific problem when properly analyzed.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >"The Universe" by the way is an abstract term; if we redefine it to "being beginningless" then it is the same as God, but it's also no longer the same as what most people conceive of as "The Universe"

                Meaningless semantic games. There's no reason to presume that a Godless Universe has a beginning. Just because you unreasonably want to stamp the word "God" on such a universe means absolutely nothing.

                You are predefining your God to be beginingless. You are predefining your Universe to have a beginning.
                And your other psychobabble about a beggingless universe being not present in time and not subject to contingency is baseless too.

                Begging the question is a theme in this thread.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Meaningless semantic games
                Unfortunately that does not hold up as an argument.
                >There's no reason to presume that a Godless Universe has a beginning.
                There is, because it is in time. And to be in time is partly to be a modifiable entity (because otherwise there would be no change; and no time because time is a form of change), and therefore to have a beginning because everything modifiable at some point became the way it currently is through modification.
                >You are predefining your God to be beginingless
                Not predefining, defining. That is part of the definition of God as such.
                >You are predefining your Universe to have a beginning.
                Again, defining, not predefining. The Universe as most people understand it is a material, modifiable entity having an existence in space and in time. This is not a controversial definition of the Universe; all that I have done is derive a tautological interpolation from the popular definition.
                >And your other psychobabble about a beggingless universe being not present in time and not subject to contingency is baseless too.
                Not at all, and you are unable to show how. Admitting your own ignorance is, again, unfortunately no refutation.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >There is, because it is in time. And to be in time is partly to be a modifiable entity (because otherwise there would be no change; and no time because time is a form of change), and therefore to have a beginning because everything modifiable at some point became the way it currently is through modification.

                The conclusion does not follow from the premise. Modification can go on and on forever. Nothing you have said necessitate a universe with a beginning. (Pretty much like how the existence of causality does not necessitate a prime mover)

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Modification can go on and on forever.
                Correct. But so long as it goes on at all, the thing has a beginning, because a modification is a beginning (of the new state) and an end (of the previous).
                >Nothing you have said necessitate a universe with a beginning
                See above. Looks like you might finally be able to understand.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >, because a modification is a beginning (of the new state) and an end (of the previous).
                And so on and so on till infinity. Hence a universe with no beginning. Simple as.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Doesn't help. All logical models still rest on something that can't be modeled with logic.

                >What you say tells me something is seriously wrong with your brain.
                Says the guy who confuses rules of logical argument with nature of the universe lmao

                Why do you say this after I clarified it over an over? I can only talk about what I can describe.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                So your argument that Universe has a beginning rests on the idea that every logical argument has an axiom?

                Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

                Holy shit. Atleast learn the definition of the words you are using.
                https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjU8c_9v537AhWr0XMBHaJsAPwQFnoECA0QAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.m.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FAxiom&usg=AOvVaw1yrNsRuGlTLoT7qwrvNGFF

                REEEAAAAAADDDDD

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >So your argument that Universe has a beginning
                How can you get this illiterate? What are you replying to?
                Logic demands any description you conceive of the world will rest on irreducible axioms. This indisputable fact supports the prime mover idea and gödel.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Logic demands any description you conceive of the world will rest on irreducible axioms.
                And your conceptions are equal to what they conceptualize?
                >This indisputable fact supports the prime mover idea
                I want to see some proof of concept first. If your descriptions don't match what they're purportedly describing, how can we know they're "indisputable fact"?

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >And your conceptions are equal to what they conceptualize?
                They're the best I have when it comes to this like everything else. The alternative is not thinking. Same applies to physics models.
                >If your descriptions don't match what they're purportedly describing
                I'm talking about what we can possibly describe, not just my specific models.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >They're the best I have
                But you're not the best oracle I have.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Logic demands any description you conceive of the world will rest on irreducible axioms. This indisputable fact supports the prime mover idea and gödel.

                >confuses rules of logical argument with nature of the universe lmao
                TOP KEK

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >confuses rules of logical argument with nature of the universe lmao
                No, I even specifically used wording like "describable" and "irreducible". I'm talking about what we can model.

                Logical models do not stop at irreducible causal factors. They start at irreducible causal factors. Here's some necessary reading for you too:

                An axiom, postulate, or assumption is a statement that is taken to be true, to serve as a premise or starting point for further reasoning and arguments. The word comes from the Ancient Greek word ἀξίωμα (axíōma), meaning 'that which is thought worthy or fit' or 'that which commends itself as evident'.[1][2]

                >Logical models do not stop at irreducible causal factors
                If you work backwards from the model to the causal factors. I clarified this in another post but you actively work to avoid understanding anything said so these things are forgotten in milliseconds.
                Why not try, just as an experiment to work from the assumption that I'm trying to communicate something instead of living in your fantasy world and undermining communication?

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >If you work backwards from the model to the causal factors.

                You cannot work backwards from conclusions to axioms. That's nonsensical. Again you are confusing axioms with conclusions and showing your utter disregard for basic definitions of these terms.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >You cannot work backwards from conclusions to axioms
                Models based on causal relationships can be retraced. You're avoiding understanding anything by being an anal retard. Point is like I said many times any model/description will always rest on axioms. That means if we explore the best possible logical model of reality it will still rest on axioms external to that model.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >I want God to be a conclusion to the fundamental axioms(like causality), so that I can proclaim with gusto that I've logically proven the existence of God.

                >I also want God to be a self evident axiom, because my proof is shit and leads to contradictions. So you might as well just assume that God is self evident and doesn't require proof.

                >I can't decide if God is an axiom in my proof or the conclusion.

                >I don't know what an axiom even is.

                >I don't know high school logic.

                Education incoming:
                An axiom, postulate, or assumption is a statement that is taken to be true, to serve as a premise or starting point for further reasoning and arguments. The word comes from the Ancient Greek word ἀξίωμα (axíōma), meaning 'that which is thought worthy or fit' or 'that which commends itself as evident'.[1][2]

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Who are you quoting?

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Just pointing out the fallacy in your line of reasoning. In a rephrased manner so the stupidity of presuming God as an axiom when you've set out to prove its existence becomes more apparent.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Nothing you said has anything to do with anything I said. The third word is you demanding I'm talking about some idea of God you have. You do this despite me clarifying around 500 times I'm not. Why? Why pretend you're talking to me when you're just talking to some fantasy you're making up in your mind?

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >The third word is you demanding I'm talking about some idea of God you have

                Instead of directly addressing the argument you always come up with this tangent. Maybe because you're out of real arguments. From now on everytime I use the word "God" you can presume that I'm talking about whatever you set out to prove without any religious or metaphysical baggage

                Are you satisfied now?

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Instead of directly addressing the argument
                What argument?
                How does your rant relate to anything I said?
                >if we explore the best possible logical model of reality it will still rest on axioms external to that model
                Why not read the words and reply to them instead?
                >From now on everytime I use the word "God" you can presume that I'm talking about whatever you set out to prove
                So whatever I present is "God"? Purely so you can undermine whatever I say? Why not just fucking use language honestly without the poor attempts at manipulation?

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >What argument?
                The idea of an uncaused cause contradicts the axiom that everything has a cause

                Assuming God to not axiomatically require a cause renders the entire proof necessary and is an assertion based on faith

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >The idea of an uncaused cause contradicts the axiom that everything has a cause
                You're not replying to posts using any of these terms. You add them to obfuscate any attempts to communicate meaning.

                Talk about resorting to pedantic bullshit when you crap is called out.

                Why don't you answer my question.

                Is God self evident?

                >Is God self evident?
                This means nothing to me, you're referencing some bullshit you came up with that has nothing to do with anything I said. You're completely incapable of communicating.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Answer the question. Is God self evident or not. You can always pretend later that my utter refutations of your bullshit have nothing to do with what you actually said.

                But answer this one question.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Is God self evident or not.
                No? What the fuck are you talking about retard? This means absolutely nothing to me so any answer is as meaningless. You're completely incapable of basic communication, not just logic.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >No
                Good. So God is not an axiom. Am I correct?

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                I understand where you're going now and it's based on deliberately continuing to misrepresent my position despite it being clarified a million times. Why? Why not just read and actually engage with what's fucking posted? How can you explain this behavior if it's not some malevolent programming?

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Lol. I'm not going anywhere I can only work from how you answer. Take me wherever you want baby I'm all yours.

                Simple question. If God is not self evident. Then God is not an axiom, right?
                Don't be so stressed consider it a game. Answer honestly what you think

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >I can only work from how you answer
                You could work from what I actually said instead of leading me down a line of reasoning you made up using your questions.
                >Simple question.
                Why would I follow you down this road when you ignore everything I actually say?

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >leading me down a line of reasoning you made up using your questions
                Your answer bro. You are in full control of this line of reasoning.

                If God is not self evident as you yourself answered. Is God an axiom?

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Is God an axiom
                This means nothing. Is frog a door? You're attempting to confuse the point about models using wiki definitions about how to construct logical arguments. Any model will rest on factors the model can't describe.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Is frog a door? You're attempting to confuse the point about models using wiki definitions about how to construct logical arguments.

                Lol he's becoming self aware. I guess something of what I said got to his head

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                It's incredible that people this deranged actually exist. I will never get used to it. The most extreme satire will never come close to how fucked in the head you really are.

                Alright since arguing language is all you're good for I'll rephrase.

                Is the Existence of God an axiom of the universe

                >Is the Existence of God an axiom of the universe
                Everything we can model is derived from something we can't model.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Anyway, I grow tier of your women like illogical screeching, deflection, tangents and seething. The reek of estrogen is getting on my nerves now. I will conclude this thread with a final debunk soon.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Alright since arguing language is all you're good for I'll rephrase.

                Is the Existence of God an axiom of the universe

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Are you really incapable of saying anything without making up these stories? I've challenged you many times to just try experimenting with not being a deranged retard. You really can't? Not for a single post?

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                There's no story. This is literally your fallacy.

                >uhhh.... I proved God with axioms.... But uhhhh god is axiom too... Uhh... So it doesn't matter if god contradicts other axioms.... Uh.. Ok!

                Alright. Since your smooth brain cannot comprehend why you are wrong for presuming God both as the result of logic and an axiom itself I'll ask you one simple question...

                Is God self evident?

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >There's no story.
                >makes up yet another story to reply to instead of replying to any words I actually posted

                >They're the best I have
                But you're not the best oracle I have.

                You're not presenting alternatives so apparently I am. You're apparently completely incapable of any thought so any thought is the best you got.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Talk about resorting to pedantic bullshit when you crap is called out.

                Why don't you answer my question.

                Is God self evident?

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >not presenting alternatives
                So you agree I have a rhinoceros in my basement? What's the alternative? I mean, if my basement doesn't have a rhinoceros then where I have I been doing my laundry? Is there just some bottomless void under my house? That has to be my basement, and my basement has a rhinoceros

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >presuming God both as the result of logic and an axiom itself
                Everything we can model is derived from something we can't model. Do you actually disagree or do you just want to keep jerking off in your fantasy world?

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                So you are deriving your arguments from God? Oh my I thought you were deriving your logic from causality. So you already presume that God exists. Dare I use the F-word

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >So you are deriving your arguments from God?
                What are you talking about? I say x and you reliably just start rambling incoherently about something I didn't even hint at.
                Everything we can model is derived from something we can't model.
                Do you actually disagree with this? Are you not even willing to clarify this simple question? There's no part of you that values sincere communication or thought of any kind?

                >not presenting alternatives
                So you agree I have a rhinoceros in my basement? What's the alternative? I mean, if my basement doesn't have a rhinoceros then where I have I been doing my laundry? Is there just some bottomless void under my house? That has to be my basement, and my basement has a rhinoceros

                >What's the alternative?
                That there isn't one. Have you been doing your laundry with a rhino? Then I expect something you refer to as a rhino is there.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Do you actually disagree with this?
                I don't. But since we are talking about the existence of God here. And you are presuming that God is the "axiom" that everything is derived from. And axioms are assumed and self evident. Hence God is assumed too. Which means you have a faith in God. Simple as.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >I don't.
                Then what the fuck is wrong with your brain retard?
                >But since we are talking about the existence of God here
                I'm not and I told you 500 times. We're talking about the idea of the prime mover you mindless piece of shit. How many times have I pointed out that you seem unable to separate concepts?

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >We're talking about the idea of the prime mover you mindless piece of shit.

                Why are you so stuck on semantics? You have bigger problems to worry about. Your reasoning fails undergrad logic

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                The reasoning you keep attributing to me while ignoring everything posted. What's the goal? What will you accomplish with ignoring what this post says?

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Have you been doing your laundry with a rhino? Then I expect something you refer to as a rhino is there
                Yeah there's a rhinoceros in my basement. That's how I know it's my basement when I am down there. Other basements don't have a rhinoceros, as you may have observed. But rest assured, my basement has a rhinoceros.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                So you defined the rhino and the basement by their relationship to each other. That's retarded but you can do that if you want.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >That's retarded
                I'm glad you agree. So is the prime mover in its relation to the universe / caused things / motion.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                If you wash clothes in your basement you have a way to wash clothes in your basement.
                This is a better analogy, not great but still better. The question still stands that you should seriously consider if you have any interest in not being a retard, why can't you work using actual logic directly? Why does it always have to be a tortured far fetched analogy with embedded petty attacks?

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Why are you so hostile to the idea that what makes my basement my basement, and not like any regular basement, is that it contains a rhinoceros? If it weren't the case that there is a rhinoceros in my basement, it wouldn't be my basement—my entire house would just fall into some infinite chasm. But I do have a rhinoceros in my basement and so my house stands.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >That's retarded
                I'm glad you agree. So is the prime mover in its relation to the universe / caused things / motion.

                Lmfao

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                How does a universe with a beginning have no beginning? How can you assert that I am the one violating logic when you make an assertion like this?

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >How does something I presume to have a property not have that property
                So basically
                >The universe has a beginning.... Because it just is... Ooook?

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                It's not about presumption, it's about the basic attributes inhering in the object we are talking about. The Universe is not the same as time, in fact it is subject to time, and it is also modifiable, therefore it must have a beginning, because otherwise it would not have those attributes. Again, how does an indefinite temporal sequence imply that objects existing within this sequence are not sequentially ordered? This is what your self-contradiction amounts to, which is why I asked how you could say that a Universe with a beginning has no beginning.
                >And so on and so on till infinity. Hence a universe with no beginning.
                You are saying here that because the Universe is constantly created and destroyed (because time is indefinitely extended as a continuum), therefore it has no beginning. It is entirely devoid of thought, and I struggle to see how you are still fixated upon this as a struggle of definitions. It seems to me like you actually cannot rigorously comprehend the words you are using, so you are actually confusing yourself by repeatedly switching the substantial content of words around without even realizing it yourself. This is not a problem with language, it is actually a problem for you to resolve yourself before you engage in highly precise and abstract argumentation.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >The Universe is not the same as time, in fact it is subject to time, and it is also modifiable, therefore it must have a beginning, because otherwise it would not have those attributes.
                >Because I said so.
                Are you people really this incapable of substantiating anything you say.

                >Again, how does an indefinite temporal sequence imply that objects existing within this sequence are not sequentially ordered?
                Never said that.

                >which is why I asked how you could say that a Universe with a beginning has no beginning.
                >How could you sat that something that I presume possess a property does not possess that property
                I don't know man. You are the oracle who magically knows these things not me. Maybe tell me my future next.

                >You are saying here that because the Universe is constantly created and destroyed
                Presuming that "creation" is necessary in an infinite universe when by definition its not.

                >begging the question
                >begging the question
                >begging the question
                >begging the question
                >begging the question

                You literally cannot prove the existence of God without doing this. Even that attempt at retort to my logically drawn debunk is chalk full of it.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Presuming that "creation" is necessary in an infinite universe when by definition its not
                You are begging the question of an infinite universe. Go ahead and demonstrate how this could even ever be verified. Give evidence of an actually infinite amount of events having happened or what that would even mean. All available data points to a beginning and there is no available data that points to an actually infinite amount of events having passed. It's not as if you could somehow trace back to a point infinitely far back and declare that this is the point at which infinity started. This is a contradiction in terms.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >it is also modifiable, therefore it must have a beginning
                Isn't the "prime mover" modifiable if at some time it set things in motion which had not been in motion? It therefore must have a beginning, or at the very least, a cause for motion? Otherwise, what was wrong with "the universe" not having a beginning? What good is it for us to say "the cause of the universe has no beginning" instead? Seems unnecessary.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >ha ha
                But why can't you say anything? Present some logic that's reproducible. So far you said "no" in a lot of different ways but can't present any hint of a coherent thought.
                >your conclusions did not logically follow from your premises
                Any conclusion needs a premise, any model needs an axiom. If reality is analogous to models and all science assumes it is then reality has axioms beyond it. Any model we can conceive needs an axiom that is not derivable from anything else.
                What part of this don't you get? You will never actually answer, just say "no" over and over.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >If reality is analogous to models and all science assumes it is then reality has axioms beyond it. Any model we can conceive needs an axiom that is not derivable from anything else.

                You really are a sweetheart aren't you. If God is your axiom then the existence of God cannot be derived because the knowledge exists beforehand. In which case the "proof for god" is a pointless exercise. At which point the question is, where did you derive that knowledge from? Not from reality it seems since God cannot be directly observed. Hence we can conclude that your axiom here is based on... Ding ding ding...... FAITH.

                You really really need to have an education

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Do you exist? Yes.
                Therefore God exists period.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                More braindead emotional associations. I deliberately avoided the word God. You deliberately introduce it because you can't think in any other terms. You're a brainwashed religious zealot so blinded by his dogma that he can't come up with a single coherent thought.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >I deliberately avoided the word God.
                I don't really care what you call it. Faulty logic is faulty logic. I have no skin in proving theists wrong.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Btw. Can you address anything that I post. Counter any of the arguments I make. Or seething is the only thing you learned in logic school.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Counter any of the arguments I make
                Your "arguments" are not relevant to anything I said.
                >If God is your axiom
                Is not what I said, it's not what the text you quoted said.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Say something about the text you actually quoted please?
                >Any model we can conceive needs an axiom that is not derivable from anything else.
                I'm not adding attributes to the prime mover. You keep doing that. Why? Why can't you parse the statements as stated?

                >Polytheists developed formal logic which demanded a universal cause.
                They're wrong too dipshit. It's the same problem. But at least they weren't dicks about it

                Then stop pretending it's about religion retard. Present actual fucking logic, perhaps alternative models or even just acknowledging what denying the prime mover logically demands. What does it actually mean? You completely ignore when I point out that you're arguing as if both circular logic and infinite regress is preferable to simply acknowledging the need for an irreducible axiom. You ignore all attempts to engage with meaning to mindlessly parrot your mindless horseshit.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Present actual fucking logic, perhaps alternative models or even just acknowledging what denying the prime mover logically demands. What does it actually mean?
                What part of "prove it" wasn't clear to you? I don't care about the alternatives to the prime mover. I care for a demonstration of this uncaused thing that is excluded from your premise of "caused things" and only formally introduced later despite being implied in that premise. Why are you able to assert the duality of the caused and the uncaused? Where is this information? Did you bring it down the mountain inscribed on a tablet? By the way, I'll show the rhinoceros if you send me $40 in BTC

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >prove it
                You would have to understand the idea first and also no, go fuck yourself retard, you go into threads on other subjects and tell everyone you refuse to think about the subject because "le proof"?
                >Why are you able to assert the duality of the caused and the uncaused?
                Like I said from the start you either have to accept the simple idea of an irreducible axiom or accept infinite regress and circular logic. Assume either answer and work from it, assuming the latter means the rules defined themselves based on themselves. What about that makes it seem preferable to you than just accepting the simple irreducible axiom?

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >you either have to accept the simple idea of an irreducible axiom or accept infinite regress and circular logic
                Why do you think one of these is not problematic while the other two are? Is this some kind of joke?

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >problematic
                It's all weird as fuck when you get on this level but you can't present any hint of a fucking alternative you mindless piece of shit.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Are you going to prove it or not, Tommy?

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                I presented you with the question of what defines the rules of logic multiple times. You're not interested in the actual questions being discussed at all and their consequences? You have absolutely nothing to offer? Then why enter these threads?

                Are you going to prove it or not, Tommy?

                What are you trying to accomplish? What is valid proof? Normally any alternative leading to infinite regress or circular logic would be considered proof.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                How many posts later is this and you still don't see a problem with "everything caused has a cause but wait there's something uncaused because I said so"? I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell if you're interested.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >because I said so
                Because logic demands either complete nonsense or an uncaused cause. Present an alternative.
                Explore the consequences of different assumptions like a thinking person does, see where they lead you. If you find anything worth presenting then come back. As it is you're apparently too dumb to explore anything.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >you're apparently too dumb to explore anything
                Tommy, no matter how many times you tell me God ate all those cookies I'm not going to believe you. He doesn't live here. He doesn't have keys to the house. I'm told he likes fumes from roasted animal carcasses burned in Jerusalem anyway.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >present an alternative
                Here are four:
                1. The universe has always existed; it has no cause.
                2. Cause and effect don't actually work the way you think they work.
                3. The universe had a creator, but it wasn't anything you would consider to be a god.
                4. The universe as you know it doesn't even exist, you're a brain in a jar or a dreaming butterfly.
                I personally think 1 and 2 are the most plausible. Especially 2. Our understanding of causality in the context of the birth of universes is basically nil.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >The universe has always existed
                Not relevant. You're talking about time not causality.
                >Cause and effect don't actually work the way you think they work.
                We're talking about logical models. If logical models are invalid nothing we say or describe is.
                >The universe had a creator, but it wasn't anything you would consider to be a god.
                Not relevant, you keep adding attributes to the prime mover because you can't discuss the actual idea.
                >the universe as you know it doesn't even exist
                Not relevant to the nature of logic and everything we know.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Lel. Why can't you just counter the simple point that if a the conclusion derived from a set of axioms through deductive reasoning contradicts the axioms then either the axioms are untrue or faulty reasoning is at play.

                This is literally how we prove that underoot(2) is irrational. My class could do it in 9th grade. How old are you btw?

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                There is no contradiction except in your mind. You don't reply to any of my clarifying statements because you're working hard to not understand anything despite it being spoonfed to you in babby form.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >There is no contradiction except in your mind.
                >There's no contradiction because I said so

                Since you hate analogies so much because they make apparent how shit your argument is. I'll present another one.

                Take the proof that underroot(2) is irrational.

                We start with the assumption that this number is infact rational i.e. it can be represented as a/b where a and b are whole numbers

                Then we perform some mathematical operations on this number and come to the conclusion that if a/b = underroot(2) then a and be cannot be whole, ehich is a contradiction. Thus proving that this number is infact irrational.

                NOW IMAGINE:
                That after coming up with the conclusion that a and b are not whole numbers. I declare dogmatically underroot(2) is infact still an rational number and the conclusion that a and b are not whole numbers is simultaneously true as well. And if someone points out the contradiction I declare that its all in their head.

                This is the sheer level of IGNORANCE and STUPIDITY we are dealing with here.

                Infact this example of stupidity is still less severe than what is being done in this thread. Since the axiom that under root(2) is irrational does logically lead to the conclusion that a and b are not whole numbers. Unlike the axiom that causality exists which does not even lead to the necessary existence of a prime mover.

                Congrats you are dumber than a 9th grader who failed the math test

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Why is it equivalent or analogous?

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                In both this case and the cosmological argument a conclusion is drawn which contradicts the axiom.

                >Logic demands an irreducible axiom. It has nothing to do with faith.
                All axioms are faith based retard

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >All axioms are faith based retard
                You don't have to believe in it to work from it. Normally the axioms of a model are derived from other models. The point is eventually you will reach irreducible factors. A model of anything rests on factors outside it. The describable universe rests on elements outside it.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >The describable universe rests on elements outside it
                And that's what I've been saying. That if you presume God to be an axiom. You cannot prove it since you've already assumed it. Which is the definition of Faith. I don't even have a problem with people who have a faith in God. Sure their faith is misguided but whatever. But to even think that you can derive it using logic from axioms like causality. Without addressing the contradiction it presents?

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >you've already assumed it
                Where? Why do you keep saying this? What's wrong with your brain? I even offered the only alternatives I can conceive of. You offered nothing.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >I don't know what an axiom is
                Uh... Maybe read first before commenting?

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                I offered the only alternatives I can conceive of and told you I'm willing to explore any alternatives. How is that assuming God axiomatically?

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                This is the wikipedia definition of an axiom for all the christcucks in this thread who don't know what an axiom is and keep on confusing terms

                An axiom, postulate, or assumption is a statement that is taken to be true, to serve as a premise or starting point for further reasoning and arguments. The word comes from the Ancient Greek word ἀξίωμα (axíōma), meaning 'that which is thought worthy or fit' or 'that which commends itself as evident'.[1][2]

                Read it again and again until you learn what an axiom is. Consider this tution free education

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                But I'm not confused about what an axiom is. Why can't you clarify your statements? Why do you work so hard to avoid understanding anything said to you? Really what do you think the point of this is?

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                If you've read it. (Though I'm sure you are still going to deliberately confuse terms and make pedantic statements like a troll) here's how it goes.

                Either:
                You can start with some axioms about the world. Apply logic. And come to the conclusion that God exists

                Or:
                You can assume the existence of God as an axiom itself. In which case you'd be basing it on faith.

                Your statement here:
                >You don't have to believe in it to work from it. Normally the axioms of a model are derived from other models. The point is eventually you will reach irreducible factors. A model of anything rests on factors outside it. The describable universe rests on elements outside it

                Makes no sense in this context. Since conclusions are derived from axioms. Axioms are not derived from conclusions. They are always assumed.

                This is why you need to read the wikipedia defintion. Now go read it again!

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >You can start with some axioms about the world. Apply logic. And come to the conclusion that God exists
                Well that's the joke Tommy is playing at ITT. He writes a premise that requires the conclusion and calls it logic. The axiom of caused things being caused sets up uncaused things not being caused but we are asked to pretend it doesn't do this.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Yeah I know. He's begging the question. But even then he could've come up with a conclusion that doesn't contradict his own premise and throws the entire thing into the dustbin lmao

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Makes no sense
                What part don't you understand?
                >You don't have to believe in it to work from it.
                Understand this? I can reconstruct logic using given axioms and explore the consequences without accepting them. No faith needed.
                >Normally the axioms of a model are derived from other models.
                Usually you don't just make up random axioms, they're derived from other observations and models of phenomena.
                >he point is eventually you will reach irreducible factors.
                All models rest on axioms so tracing back the logic of any model will lead back to them. This is another way to say any model we can come up with rests on factors outside that model.
                >the describable universe rests on elements outside it
                Is true if models rest on factors outside them. They obviously do, you can't conceive of an example that doesn't.
                >this is why you need to read the wikipedia defintion
                Try working from the assumption that I don't.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >the describable universe rests on elements outside it
                The describable universe is not a line of reasoning lmao. Imagine being this confused. You are literally confusing the fundamentals of logical derivation with the being of the universe. Even thinking of physical universe as a logical argument and "things outside it" (that you totally don't mean God) as an axiom is bad metaphor at best

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >The describable universe is not a line of reasoning lmao
                This statement has no meaning. You can't relate the phrase "describable universe" to my point about models?
                >You are literally confusing the fundamentals of logical derivation with the being of the universe.
                You are. I can only talk about what I can describe. My logical models will stop at irreducible causal factors that aren't subject to the rules I take for granted.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >duh duh teacher taught me that axiom is assumed
                >buh teacher taught me conclusion be drawn from axiom
                >uh uh this is just like like how god is outside everything and everything is from it

                Confusing rules of logic with metaphysical entities lmao. You have to be 18 to post here

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Confusing rules of logic with metaphysical entities
                You're doing that. Think about what I'm saying if I'm not confusing those. I'm talking about what I can describe and model. Something irreducible exists, you keep demanding I add additional metaphysical attributes to that.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                > keep demanding I add additional metaphysical attributes to that.

                Your mental baggage is showing. Actually read what I say instead of presuming things about me.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Actually read what I say
                What you say tells me something is seriously wrong with your brain.
                I'm talking about what I can describe and model.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >What you say tells me something is seriously wrong with your brain.
                Says the guy who confuses rules of logical argument with nature of the universe lmao

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                The person in the video is not me. I am not making a argument about a specific god.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Good response

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        >The universe has a beginning
        Source?

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          In terms of physical evidence, the hubble law, extrapolations from the hunnle constant, Olbers' paradox etc. In terms of logic, I mentioned the impossibility of an actual infinity of prior events and infinite temporal regress here

          >It's necessary
          No, it is not. It began. Things which began are not necessary. And before you try to claim that the universe did not begin, beyond just all available data pointing to the idea that there exist a point in time to which it can be traced back to where the space and time of the universe was booted up, you will also run in to logical problems of infinite temporal regress and having to claim that an actually infinite amount of events have past, despite the fact that events continue to additionally happen, which is a contradiction. You can't add additionally to actual infinities, so the past can not be infinite. This is the big clue that the universe is contingent. It has a temporality constraint. I also didn't say anything about 'yaweh. You are having a plebbit atheist reactionary moment.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            Immanent proofs on one hand and transcendetal speculation on the other won't cut it

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >the impossibility of an actual infinity of prior events and infinite temporal regress
            we're not postulating that the infinite past exist as actual discrete units

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            refuted by quantum mechanics

            • 3 months ago
              Anonymous

              Everything described by quantum mechanics obeys logical causality. All math does and any argument you can conceive of too. There is no "refutation" of fundamental basic logic possible, any cope you bring up just reveals your own retardation.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                NTA. The concept of causality isn't a logical concept. Quantum mechanics like all of science is never understood without a concept of causality because of how we interpret it, but this has nothing to do with logic. You could have quantum mechanics' maths predicitng outcomes and posit they're all random co-occurences without any concept of causality at play, and there's nothing illogical about that. You're an illiterate.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >You could have quantum mechanics' maths predicitng outcomes
                Then you're describing something with logical causality. Why do you retards talk shit about subjects you have no grasp on whatsoever? You can't begin to criticize any of this shit because you don't understand it even a little bit.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                I was replying to your "in terms of physical evidence" you retarded ape

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        >What the atheist then has to do is argue against the universe having a beginning, which runs in to problems of actual infinities of prior events and infinite temporal regress
        There is no theoretical problem with an indefinite temporal series so long as it is not hierarchical; in fact it is the only possible summary of time from the selfsame perspective. Time was created, but it was not created in time, which means that the only way we can cogently summarize time from the perspective of time is as an indefinite (not an infinite, nor a terminated) series. To understand how God created this universe is thus necessarily to understand how God transcends the mode of time therefore transcending the need to "create the Universe at a given moment" like you are suggesting, this is what Augustine called the Eternal Present.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        >That cause can't also have a beginning, or you get an infinite regress of causes.

        So, it's can't because... it just can't.

        inb4 typical special-pleading

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      Literally this. I can't believe his argument boils down to
      >all things that exist have a cause
      >this they all came from an original cause
      >God!

  8. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Correct.

  9. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    The reason the unmoved mover argument seems to hold is because it provides the ultimate epistemic justification. It is pure foundationalism. As per the JTBG theory of truth (justified, true belief that has been de-Gettierised) one must provide justification for knowledge to be possible: why are things that way and not another way. I know the cat is on the mat partly because I have the justification of seeing the cat on the mat which gives me a reason for believing this and not something else. Thus for us to know anything it seems like there must be an unmoved mover, because if there is an infinite chain of causation then we cannot have a tenable justification for any claim.
    We find the issue with this grounding however is that when we inquire into what is- ontology. There is an is of thatness and an is of whatness: is it? What is it? The unmoved mover only answers one of these questions: what is it? The Thomist will tell you that ultimately it is grounded in God. However this is problematic when we ask the is of thatness. How is it essentially possible for something to be? What does it mean to be? If it is true that things *are* by virtue of God- to be is to be grounded in Him- then how can we possibly say that God is? Is God self grounding? Then he is not unmoved. However if we say God is beyond this concern of grounding and that he is "beyond being" as the Patristics say, then how can we say "God exists"? This proposition become undecidable.

  10. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    The cosmological argument is thoroughly refuted on the following points:-

    1. Argument from contradiction

    This is the simplest refutal that gets repeated the most yet Godcucks haven't formulated a single coherent response to it besides claiming that God doesn't require a first cause. But they fail to mention why is it so or demonstrate how they gained this knowledge about God. The cosmological argument defies its own premise.

    They would claim that God doesn't require a cause because they define it that way. Its literally a faith argument on the same tier as "because I said so... Ok? " Which makes sense, since to actually believe in a God one would necessarily require faith , as God's existence can neither be empirically demonstrated nor logically necessiated.

    2. Argument from dynamics

    The cosmological argument presumes that the Universe is a set of cause/effect chains that terminate at a first cause. But reality is dynamic and the existence of non-linear systems falsifies the premise of cosmological argument.

    3. Argument from causality

    The argument relies on the premise that causality exists as a feature of the objects and events its associated with. But this cannot be demonstrated as fact of the world. Hence the CA works on shaky grounds.

    4. Why God?

    If the argument was valid, could it be demonstrated that God, as it is defined in theology is the first cause? The only thing this argument really trues to prove that there's a first cause. But it doesn't prove how the first cause is necessarily God.
    ....
    In conclusion: Its not really a well made argument and it attracts midwits like honey attracts bees.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      Cont.

      Not a refutal of cosmological argument perse. But this is also a point to note.

      Why is the first cause singular? By proposing that God doesn't have a first cause the Godcuck presumes that two kinds of substances exist in this world. Those that require a cause and those which don't. But the Godcuck is not able to demonstrate why there is only one uncaused cause sitting at the beginning of every causal chain.

      I can just as dogmatically propose that there are a number of these substances called the "first causes" which don't require a cause themselves and are at the beginning of every causal chain of events. This would lead to some kind of philosophical paganism which is entirely compatible with the cosmological argument, except the part where God is singular.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Why is the first cause singular?
        Not him, but Aquinas is collapsing an Aristotelian framework in which there are multiple Unmoved-Movers into one in which there is a singular Unmoved-Mover. Under Aristotle's original framework the 47-55 Gods (the Olympians of Homer) are all constantly pumping causality into the universe as they circumambulate the Earth (although it's actually more proper that they pull causality up to them, as their unmoved-ness means that they can only be moved of their own nature, they can neither be moved nor move anything). This means that any given thing actually traces its causal chain back to multiple Gods.

        Aristotle would absolutely agree with the idea of their being multiple substances, with each of the 47-55 Gods being their own substance (a "substance" in Aristotle is not a material that things are made out of but form in matter producing a unique, holistic, and internally uniform composite that produces a thing). Their special nature comes from the fact that their forms are in Quintessence, a special kind of matter without properties.

        Aquinas can't do any of that because the god of Israel is hamstrung by the Torah.

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          >without properties
          without CERTAIN properties*, my bad. Like for instance, it is frictionless and only moves in circles.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      >They would claim that God doesn't require a cause because they define it that way
      That is not the argument. The argument is one from avoiding an infinite regress of contingent entities. So we want to avoid 'who created god then, and who created the god who created god then' regress. This can be avoided by by postulating a single entity which is beginningless, ie uncaused. So once the past finitude of the universe and thus contingent-ness of the universe is established, which can be done through both cosmological evidence and through logical means, such as the impossibility of an infinite temporal regress , then the the choice is between an infinite chain of contingent causes, or a single entity which sets forth the contingent entities, of which the universe and physicality are included. So it's not just a case of arbitrarily defining it that way. This definition arises from logical necessity in trying to avoid infinite regress of contingent entities.
      >The cosmological argument presumes that the Universe is a set of cause/effect chains that terminate at a first cause. But reality is dynamic and the existence of non-linear systems falsifies the premise of cosmological argument.
      No it does not. Once the universe is caused, the unfolding of events is irrelevant. You CAN construct one based on deterministic event causality, but it is not necessary. The salient fact is the contingent-ness of the universe.
      >The argument relies on the premise that causality exists as a feature of the objects and events its associated with
      No, it does not. It relies on the contingency of the universe. The cosmological argument is one from contingency ultimately. If you want to hear a magnificent one and see bertrand russell get demolished by copelston, watch this

      >If the argument was valid
      There is no if about it. This one here,

      You have two choices
      >postulate another contingent being which initiated the system and continue infinite regress
      >postulate a necessary being which initiated the system avoid infinite regress
      You want to avoid those infinite regresses in logic by postulating the least amount of entities
      So construct an actual argument from logic
      Premise 1:
      Anything that exists has an explanation of it's existence, either in the necessity of it's own nature or in an external explanation.
      Premise 2:
      The universe has an explanation for it's existence, and that explanation is grounded in a necessary being.
      Premise 3:
      The universe exists
      Premise 4:
      Therefore the universe has and explanation existence from 1 and 3.
      Premise 5:
      Therefore the explanation of the existence of the universe is grounded in a necessary being (from 2 and4).

      for instance, is undefeatable
      >In conclus
      Nothing you have said is particularly even relevant to the argument, let alone does it defeat it.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        >This can be avoided by by postulating
        Right but that's just making shit up

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Right but that's just making shit up
          This is not an argument. You would need to pick out something I said and point out why it is invalid.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >point out why it is invalid
            Because it's made up. We can observe a tree grows from an acorn if it is given dirt and water and sunlight and time and space and many other such causal factors, but where in this is the astrally uncaused cause from the transcendental reality of non-contingent being? It's not there at all. You're declaring it just-so and then harrumphing that anyone who disagrees with your revelation is illogical. Well if the whole point of "logic" is to obfuscate dogmatic jibberish then I suppose being illogical is an imperative for those who love truth.

            • 3 months ago
              Anonymous

              >Because it's made up
              It is not. I did not make up logic.
              >We can observe a tree grows from an acorn if it is given dirt and water and sunlight and time and space and many other such causal factors
              Yeah, because that is a physical phenomenon, so you can use empirical methods and observation. We are talking about what caused the physical world. This cause is by definition not physical and not in the physical world, so you can't use this for of epistemic justification. That's why I used a logical argument as opposed to appealing to the sensible.
              >but where in this is the astrally uncaused cause
              It's not astral. The stars are part of the universe. They are contingent, like all physical objects. We are talking about the necessary cause of those things
              > from the transcendental reality of non-contingent being?
              Yes, this part is correct. Something can't be both transcendental and astral though. So you phrased that poorly. So something transcendental would necessarily not be observable by the senses. The transcendental IS non-physical.
              >It's not there at all. You're declaring it just-so and then harrumphing that anyone who disagrees with your revelation is illogical
              No. I constructed a logical argument. Logic, by the way, is also not observable through the senses. It is also non-physical and transcendental. Do you deny logic exists because you can't observe it like a tree growing from an acorn? There are different forms of epistemic justification besides observing with the senses.
              >Well if the whole point of "logic" is to obfuscate dogmatic jibberish then I suppose being illogical is an imperative for those who love truth.
              I have not mentioned religion or dogma in this thread.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                I am not using astral in the etymological sense of "stars," but mocking your now-admitted reliance upon "just trust me bro" revelation as evidence, i.e. "epistemic justification besides observing with the senses." Senses are all "we" have, all the more so if we reckon the mind as a sense since it is what is aware of concepts, thoughts, etc. You however appear to have some extrasensory revelations which can only be dogmatic to the unbeliever, such as knowledge of your uncaused cause, which cannot be experientially located in any way, as you've admitted it is outside of the physical-sensorary universe. It is your astral schizobabble, which you turgidly bark at us as if you have had a vision into another dimension where things are all chained to their great master and when he yanks they wiggle.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Why do you keep lying?
                I'm not
                > Is this just a larper thing or is it specific to you?
                No idea what you are talking about
                >You don't accept that A is caused by B is caused by C is caused by D is [...] because that's muh regress, you backstop it with the first cause.
                Irrelevant to ant point I have made.
                > If you are now saying you do accept that, what are you trying to do? Troll me into thinking christers are braindead? I did not need you to convince me.
                No idea what you are talking about and I am not interested in trying to sort through your inane low IQ posts anymore.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Irrelevant
                Your position that a first cause is "necessary" is irrelevant to the discussion at hand? Interesting

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >I am not using astral in the etymological sense of "stars," but mocking your now-admitted reliance upon "just trust me bro" revelation as evidence,
                This is nonsense. Not interested in exchanging name calling.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                If all of your positions are outside of what we can empirically know and discuss, and require me to place faith in your dogmatic utterances to proceed with your "argument", and you've never established any reason for me to accept your astrally-sourced "logic," why do I care what you think? I hope this has been enlightening for lurkers.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Because it's made up
            It is not. I did not make up logic.
            >We can observe a tree grows from an acorn if it is given dirt and water and sunlight and time and space and many other such causal factors
            Yeah, because that is a physical phenomenon, so you can use empirical methods and observation. We are talking about what caused the physical world. This cause is by definition not physical and not in the physical world, so you can't use this for of epistemic justification. That's why I used a logical argument as opposed to appealing to the sensible.
            >but where in this is the astrally uncaused cause
            It's not astral. The stars are part of the universe. They are contingent, like all physical objects. We are talking about the necessary cause of those things
            > from the transcendental reality of non-contingent being?
            Yes, this part is correct. Something can't be both transcendental and astral though. So you phrased that poorly. So something transcendental would necessarily not be observable by the senses. The transcendental IS non-physical.
            >It's not there at all. You're declaring it just-so and then harrumphing that anyone who disagrees with your revelation is illogical
            No. I constructed a logical argument. Logic, by the way, is also not observable through the senses. It is also non-physical and transcendental. Do you deny logic exists because you can't observe it like a tree growing from an acorn? There are different forms of epistemic justification besides observing with the senses.
            >Well if the whole point of "logic" is to obfuscate dogmatic jibberish then I suppose being illogical is an imperative for those who love truth.
            I have not mentioned religion or dogma in this thread.

            Okay, let's start with the simplest: this entire thread you've been saying that the israeli deity, Yahweh, is uncaused, but you have never explained why. When people point out that you have not explained why he gets to be uncaused, but other things aren't, you refuse to elaborate.

            So, why is it that some things need a cause, but Yahweh doesn't? Explain this without simply restating this under different terms, like by replacing "uncaused" with "necessary being".

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          If you are talking about this
          >This can be avoided by by postulating a single entity which is beginningless, ie uncaused.
          Then this is with regards to picking the most parsimonious explanation. So postulating one entity is more parsimonious than postulating an infinite amount of entities, ie an infinite regress of contingent entities.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >postulating an infinite amount of entities
            Why shouldn't there be infinity in terms of conceptualized entities? How many generations of your grandparents can you name? Do you assume that your great great great grandfather was the fatherless father of all men? Is that easier than trying to understand the totality? Sure, but that would also be wrong and retarded.

            • 3 months ago
              Anonymous

              >Why shouldn't there be infinity in terms of conceptualized entities?
              Because it's multiplying entities beyond necessity. It's also postulating an actual infinity of prior causal events, which if that were the case, then additional causal events could not be continually additionally added. You can't add to and ACTUAL infinity. You can only add to a potential infinity. So adding additional events can go on and trend towards infinity. That can't be the case for the past causal chain is over. And so it that is the case, then the causal chain of the past can't be past actually infinite.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >You can't add to and ACTUAL infinity
                Well you can't subtract from it either! Here you are trying to say we have A caused by B caused by C caused by D until you backstop it with Yahweh. What makes any of your decisions here necessary? Why does the flow of things require you slice it into some specific and precise set of entities? What makes your slicing and dicing correct? You can't demonstrate the first cause anyhow, only plead that it is necessary for the rest of your argument that caused things need a cause

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Well you can't subtract from it either! Here you are trying to say we have A caused by B caused by C caused by D until you backstop it with Yahweh
                I am not saying any of that.
                >What makes any of your decisions here necessary? Why does the flow of things require you slice it into some specific and precise set of entities? What makes your slicing and dicing correct? You can't demonstrate the first cause anyhow, only plead that it is necessary for the rest of your argument that caused things need a cause
                Not sure what you are trying to convey here

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >I am not saying any of that.
                Why do you keep lying? Is this just a larper thing or is it specific to you? You don't accept that A is caused by B is caused by C is caused by D is [...] because that's muh regress, you backstop it with the first cause. If you are now saying you do accept that, what are you trying to do? Troll me into thinking christers are braindead? I did not need you to convince me.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >You can't add to and ACTUAL infinity
                Yes you can. This is basic mathematics.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                I am not talking about abstractions. I am talking about physical events which have been instantiated. Also, with regard to adding to actual metaphysical infinity, I would suggest reading pic related. You certainly can not add to an actual infinity.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Why would I care what some LARPy freemason had to say about math?

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            Hubble constant here

            In terms of physical evidence, the hubble law, extrapolations from the hunnle constant, Olbers' paradox etc. In terms of logic, I mentioned the impossibility of an actual infinity of prior events and infinite temporal regress here
            [...]

            Mis-spelled that.

  11. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    If God is a necessary creator, does he create necessarily? Is his creation necessary?

  12. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >If these contingent entities are able to create universes such as the one that we are immersed in, then they fit at least one commonly ascribed attribute of god. And they certainly would be creator gods by definition.

    Why would it be necessary for these entities to create universes, or have attributes of God? As I pointed out before, you don't know what an infinite regress is. You require these infinite contingencies to have attributes of God so that your primal cause can be the same. Begging the question.

    >Feel free to try.
    The first post already did it. The rest of this thread is just you and other retards still coping about it without actually being able to offer an explaination that doesn't amount to "it just is... Ok?"

    >So far you are just appealing to infinite regresses of contingent creator gods as opposed to a single necessary god.
    Strawman. First off I am not the anon who said that infinite regress is illogical, though he does have a point. I'm just pointing out that if there is an infinite regress it doesn't have to be infinite Gods as you postulated.

    >This is postulating entities beyond necessity to an infinite degree. This is the worst possible argument that a human could devise.
    Just fucking lol. For a midwit who purports to be logical you were quick to appeal to simplicity. Yet you can't offer a real reason why that is a bad argument.

    >The logical necessity for god has in fact been demonstrated.
    >And so on. You are free to deny logic though.
    The only thing being demonstrated here is the age old wisdom that stupidity has its own flavor of confidence. I've seen Flat earthers proclaim just as boldly that Earth cannot be round. And their arguments have the same tier of intellectual merit as the cosmological argument.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      >*infinite regress is NOT illogical

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Why would it be necessary for these entities to create universes, or have attributes of God?
      You tell me. I am not arguing in favor of such entities. I argue for one only.
      No, it didn't. It made the basic bitch 'who created god' argument. That is an amazing athiest style argument which was addressed here with actual footage of the amazing athiest and other goobers like jocylyn glenn and styxhexen hammer making the argument

      >The rest of this thread is just you and other retards still coping about it without actually being able to offer an explanation that doesn't amount to "it just is... Ok?"
      No, it is not. I don't have to cope for anything. I am right and have demonstrated it throughout the thread.
      >though he does have a point.
      No, he doesn't. You people are too dense to even argue with. It's like you are artificial human software (bots) designed to just post the same low iq shit to waste my time. Actual, non-simulated humans, it would seem, should not be this dense.
      >Just fucking lol. For a midwit who purports to be logical you were quick to appeal to simplicity. Yet you can't offer a real reason why that is a bad argument.
      Not an argument
      >The only thing being demonstrated here is the age old wisdom that stupidity has its own flavor of confidence. I've seen Flat earthers proclaim just as boldly that Earth cannot be round. And their arguments have the same tier of intellectual merit as the cosmological argument.
      Not an argument. You are a dunce and not even capable of understanding the argument.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        >You tell me. I am not arguing in favor of such entities. I argue for one only.
        Lmao. You can't follow your own line of reasoning. I suggest you to re read your posts. You said that contingent entities in an infinite regress necessarily have God like properties. Which you cannot demonstrate or argue for. Thus proving my assertion that youd don't know what an infinite regress is.

        >I don't have to cope for anything. I am right
        Pure unfiltered dogma

        >have demonstrated it throughout the thread.
        Refuted everytime

        >It's like you are artificial human software (bots) designed to just post the same low iq shit to waste my time.
        >God is uncausable because I define it to be so

        Heh, ironic

        >Not an argument
        Saying that infinite regress can't exist because you don't like big numbers isn't an argument either.

  13. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    >I am logical... O..o...k
    >I am arguing from a position of pure logic O...o...k
    >No I can't tackle any of the gaping logical holes in my system. But its still all full proof logical. O..o...k??

  14. 3 months ago
    Anonymous
  15. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Clearly the cause of the universe is some guy that came back from the dead 2000 years ago

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      You're confusing Christianism with the existence of God.

  16. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Why are there so many tradlarpers on LULZ.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      >can't refute an argument so I'll resort to whatever ad hominem of the month it is
      Very typical.

  17. 3 months ago
    Strange Love

    >yet another argumentative circlejerk by blind fools

    Monkey do but does not see, huh ... 😉

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      Make a point or kill yourself you namefagging, allusive, aesthetics-brained homosexual. At least the other pseuds here are risking publicizing their actual views.

  18. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    >the universe has a cause
    Why are theists like this?

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      >everything in the universe has a cause except the universe itself
      Why are atheists like this?

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        How is that different than
        >everything has a caus except god
        If you're going to assume a prima causa it's just as logical for it to be the universe than to be god

  19. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    >If there was a famous philosopher that proved that causality was a structure of human cognition and not native the the physical world what would you do with that knowledge?
    >I am an idealist so I wouldn't have a problem with mind oriented causality.
    Wow, we're reinventing postkantian German Idealism in real time, except it's the pseud, badly written version.

  20. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    wow, this really does make sexless atheists seethe quite badly.

  21. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    The universe does not need a first cause because there are no actual causes nor effects; a preceding unmoved mover is unnecessary as nothing ever moves since there are no discrete things to be moved. There's no distinction between a supposed cause and its supposed effect (and causes are also effects and effects causes), nor between the supposed causal thing and the supposed thing that is the effect.
    An unmoved mover can't be distinctly prior to the universe, as in its very "causing" of the universe it simultaneously is its effect. This that is experienced right now, every apparent moment and movement, is the unmoved mover timelessly seeming to move to itself. To then ask "what created this unmoved mover" is to miss that creation and time are also the unmoved movers apparent movements; creation and time cannot apply to "it". Call this God, call this physics, or something else, doesn't matter; this apparent movement and causality is precisely what the unmoved and "first cause" looks like to itself.

  22. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Aristotle was a presentist and so was Tommy Aquinas, so everything they have so say about motion is bullshit anyway. You have to go back (to the pre-socratics).

  23. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Everyone consider this:

    Einstein built the Special Theory of Relativity based on two axioms that were observable in nature.

    1. No object can accelerate to faster than the speed of light
    2. There does not exist an absolute frame of reference only in which the speed of light is C.

    Now imagine that starting with these axioms Einstein builds a Physics in which he, WITHOUT encountering any contradictions with his axioms, proves that certain objects in fact can accelerate to faster than light and an absolute frame of reference does exist. Imagine the shitshow.

    This is the sheer level of retardation we are dealing with here. How can you built a physics where your fundamental assumption that nothing travels faster than light is contradicted within the theory itself. Any sane person would see it as a sign of faulty logic and faulty physics.

    If you assume as a law of nature that nothing can travel faster than light. And then posit that things faster than light do exist but we just can't observe them, then you are making an argument based on FAITH. And if you try to ground this faith in a physical system where nothing indeed can travel faster than light you encounter a contradiction.

    This is logic 101 people.

  24. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    why is everyone acting like unmoved mover and prime mover are the same? I thought they were completely different.

  25. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Clearly the cause of the universe is some guy that came back from the dead 2000 years ago

  26. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Just to know: those of you that don't think (or believe) the concept of the first uncaused cause is correct, do you think the existence is infinite?

  27. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Any reason prime mover can't just be material stuff?

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      not how aristotelian philosophy works. first, Aristotle's physics held that bodies wanted to stop moving and had to have force continually applied to it in order to move. Wasn't until Hobbes and Newton that people realized this was retarded. second, what we call "matter" today was not called matter back then, they called them bodies and characterized them by having extension and quantity rather than quality. "Matter" in Aristotelian philosophy is basically just "potential" or the empty substrate onto which form is imposed. so the argument is not that "material" has to be moved but that bodies have to move. If you abstract motion away and ask why bodies cannot be a first cause in general, then the answer is that "bodies" are form imposed on matter, and they are not a primary substance. they have no being on their own. bodies are dependent in many ways on mind.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      not how aristotelian philosophy works. first, Aristotle's physics held that bodies wanted to stop moving and had to have force continually applied to it in order to move. Wasn't until Hobbes and Newton that people realized this was retarded. second, what we call "matter" today was not called matter back then, they called them bodies and characterized them by having extension and quantity rather than quality. "Matter" in Aristotelian philosophy is basically just "potential" or the empty substrate onto which form is imposed. so the argument is not that "material" has to be moved but that bodies have to move. If you abstract motion away and ask why bodies cannot be a first cause in general, then the answer is that "bodies" are form imposed on matter, and they are not a primary substance. they have no being on their own. bodies are dependent in many ways on mind.

      According to Aristotle, the Prime Mover (Zeus), alongside the other 46-54 Unmoved-Movers, are absolutely material. They have bodies. They're made out of Quintessence. Quintessence has special properties, however, such as not being subject to friction, and moving only in circles. Other things, like the Celestial Spheres, move in order to be like the Unmoved Movers, which pulls causality up through the world (this is why Aristotle is so committed to teleology: it's cosmological, examination of any thing in-depth enough leads to the Gods).

      Aquinas ends up saying that Yahweh doesn't have a body (because that would limit the Abrahamic understanding of omnipotence, by which Aquinas means that Yahweh can actualize any potential, including stuff like not having a body), and this opens up a huge can of worms that got him threatened with excommunication because anyone with a brain that looks at Thomism sees that it's either flat out atheism or full of holes.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        ah yeah, I forgot Aristotle thought the stars were the gods. is what I said at least right about the unmoved mover then?

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Aristotle thought the stars were the gods
          He was actually right about that though. They give generously without receiving and demand nothing of us.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            I think if you try to reconcile our modern idea of the stars with them being gods you end up with very Epicurean gods, just floating up there independent of all human existence. Only the Sun actually gives us anything in the way of matter and heat, the rest of the stars are just out there totally independent of us. It only made sense for Aristotle to think of them as gods because of the idea that the stars were orbiting around the earth in celestial spheres and that they determined the events that happened on earth by their movements.

            • 3 months ago
              Anonymous

              >the rest of the stars are just out there totally independent of us.
              In sense yes, but if only the sun were around to project its gravitation wouldn't that effectively make our lives on this planet impossible? At any given moment, the totality is responsible for even the most banal product. So in another sense, heliocentrism is wrong for life even if it is correct for astronomy.

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Aristotle thought the stars were the gods
          He was actually right about that though. They give generously without receiving and demand nothing of us.

          The planets, not the stars. The planets move of their own accord, the stars don't. Although of course all of this empirical stuff goes right out the window when you get a telescope, but whatever.

          Secondly, matter is a thing, and forms go into it (Which is strange in English because we say that things are "in the form [of]", but whatever). Matter has extension and quantity, but matter plus form (substance) is more quality than quantity. For example, "muscle" is a substance, it doesn't have parts or mechanism, it just exits and does things according to its nature. HERE, you are correct, bodies move, part-systems and matter-clumps don't (but there ARE raw materials that are just formless matter, and in those cases, there are no bodies).

          This is why raw matter cannot be an Unmoved Mover (the "Prime Mover" is Zeus, the Mover farthest from the Earth; he doesn't move the others, he's just the biggest and last one, and hence he moves the celestial sphere in which the stars are lodged). The Prime Movers HAVE to have a mind (because the mind is form, and all forms are intelligent to some degree) in order to do things with teloses, but they also have to not stop (and in order to move forever they must move in circles), hence why they are made out of ~special matter~ (a God is Quintessence plus a form, such as the form of Hermes).

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >The planets, not the stars.
            not individual stars, but I thought the celestial spheres they are on are moving and are also prime movers

            • 3 months ago
              Anonymous

              As I understand it, and maybe I'm wrong and he goes into this more in De Caelo and I just missed it, but the stars are embedded/painted/carve/whatever into the last Celestial Sphere, which is moved by Zeus. The God moves the Sphere, and Zeus has the biggest Sphere. I would have to read through De Caelo carefully again to argue against each sphere having its own stars, however.

              Now granted, Aristotle has 47-55 "planets" in there, and even if we include the sun and moon, you would have to add either "unseen" planets, or something like constellations. He was doing this entirely by eye, without the aid of any kind of instrumentation, so I have to wonder if this ("there are actually a lot of dots that move freely in the sky") is something that we've just lost over time because we no longer look up at the sky without all sorts of astronomy stuff as priors. This ties into the previous paragraph as there's an interesting question of "if each sphere has its own stars then which stars are in which sphere".

              The Prime Mover is beyond the Celestial Spheres, he is immaterial substance, which is what the final part of Metaphysics proposed to examine. The Celestial Spheres and quintessence are non-material, quintessence is the only immaterial element (it is form without matter, hence why it cannot possess a contrary unlike the four other elements; fire's is water, earth's is air). I'm not sure what you read but this information is derived from De Caelo (this specifically examines how quintessence must be immaterial; form/substance without matter) and Metaphysics.

              Are you referring to book Nu? It's an attack on Platonic Universals. In fact, it's overall an argument against the idea of anything being "immaterial". Aristotle spends a lot of De Caelo attacking this very idea, although I guess that you could argue that Quintessence might as well be material given how strange it is. But the Gods still very much have bodies, the Prime Mover included, and Zeus is only "outside" of things in respect to the inner core of the universe. But then, I guess there is the question of where the Mover is in respect to the sphere; is the Mover embedded in the sphere? Or are they outside of it, such that the sphere touches them, as if they were spinning it like a ball?

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Are you referring to book Nu?
                The introductory section to lambda from memory. It's where Aristotle introduces the proper aim of Metaphysics as immaterial substance, and the aim of physics as material substance. In Nu he only argues against immaterial (Platonic) universals as substance, not the immaterial as such.
                >In fact, it's overall an argument against the idea of anything being "immaterial".
                Only universals. Matter is the least substantial of the three primary elements according to his definition of substance, ie least capable of existing independently in comparison to form and composite.
                >But the Gods still very much have bodies
                But not composite bodies of form and matter, they are pure form, ie pure act. Because quintessence does not have a contrary (which you should recall from De Caelo, which is the reason it can only travel in circles because a circle allegedly does not have a contrary direction), it therefore cannot consist of matter, because all contraries/privatives are derivative of the material substrate, for example fire and water are contraries because they exist through a common medium, ie material substrate, which is what they exist through and allows them to interact and transform into each other. If quintessence were composed of matter, it would have to have a contrary.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        The Prime Mover is beyond the Celestial Spheres, he is immaterial substance, which is what the final part of Metaphysics proposed to examine. The Celestial Spheres and quintessence are non-material, quintessence is the only immaterial element (it is form without matter, hence why it cannot possess a contrary unlike the four other elements; fire's is water, earth's is air). I'm not sure what you read but this information is derived from De Caelo (this specifically examines how quintessence must be immaterial; form/substance without matter) and Metaphysics.

  28. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    This is the wikipedia definition of an axiom for all the christcucks in this thread who don't know what an axiom is and keep on confusing terms

    An axiom, postulate, or assumption is a statement that is taken to be true, to serve as a premise or starting point for further reasoning and arguments. The word comes from the Ancient Greek word ἀξίωμα (axíōma), meaning 'that which is thought worthy or fit' or 'that which commends itself as evident'.[1][2]

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      Can you point at what you're replying to. Nothing you say relates to anything anyone else says. Nobody is confused about what axioms are except you.

  29. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Reminder that potential and actualization are just words Aquinas made up

  30. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    >the universe has a beginning.... Because I sad so
    >everything that has a beginning needs a cause..... Because I said so
    >these causes cannot regress to infinite.... Because I said so
    >so there must be a primary cause(and not multiple causes).... Because I said so.

    Impeccable logic. Cannot be refuted

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      >because
      >beca
      Why do you need a cause?

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      >An uncausable cause is not a contradiction of the premise that everything has a cause..... Because I siad so.

      Can one of you guys type that
      >Anon has 2000kg of gold hidden in his basement..... Because I said so.
      Maybe that'll become true as well. I'll send some I promise 🙂

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        You've been offered many formulations pointing to the idea that don't use phrases that apparently contradict. You can't engage so you make up fantasies.

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          >You've been offered many formulations pointing to the idea that don't use phrases that apparently contradict

          You can offer them again. I'm open to seeing how an uncaused cause is not the contradiction of the premise of causality.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            Logical models will stop at irreducible causal factors that aren't subject to the apparently universal rules we take for granted like logic itself.

            • 3 months ago
              Anonymous

              Logical models do not stop at irreducible causal factors. They start at irreducible causal factors. Here's some necessary reading for you too:

              An axiom, postulate, or assumption is a statement that is taken to be true, to serve as a premise or starting point for further reasoning and arguments. The word comes from the Ancient Greek word ἀξίωμα (axíōma), meaning 'that which is thought worthy or fit' or 'that which commends itself as evident'.[1][2]

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Right, so as Tommy has so diligently pointed out, because we observe things have causes, things do not have causes.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >because we observe things have causes, things do not have causes.
                Lmao

                He/They are confusing axioms with conclusions. In their proof God is not the axiom, its the conclusion. So it has to adhere to logic. But he also somehow wants God to be the axiom, so it can be free from the necessity of logic

                This guys wants God to both be axiomatically evident and logically provable. Imbecility.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >He/They are confusing axioms with conclusions
                You make up a different fantasy every post instead of just being a reasonable sincere human being. Do you think this serves your goals? What could those goals possible be if this horseshit serves them?

  31. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    >confuses rules of logical argument with nature of the universe lmao
    HOLY KEK

  32. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Everything we can describe rests on something that can't be described.

  33. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Everything we can model is derived from something we can't model.
    You retards say your accept this but not the prime mover. The irreducible and the prime mover are completely interchangeable. The only difference is one way of framing it is associated with religion in your minds.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Everything we can model is derived from something we can't model.

      And the something we can't model is presumed on faith. Hence the prime mover is presumed on faith. Simple as.

      Why are you dodging my question tho?

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        >And the something we can't model is presumed on faith
        I don't have to presume anything by faith based on this statement. I don't have to add any attributes to the prime mover. The logic demands it exists. This is separate from additional claims about the fucking phenomena.

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          >I don't have to add any attributes to the prime move
          Existence itself is an attribute that you've gifted to the prime mover solely based on faith

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          >The logic demands it exists
          The logic demands that God exists in the same vein as that other anon's basement demands that a rhinoceros live in it.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah, I mean who would have thought? Taking an elaborate system of rules for presenting opinions concocted by theologians which ultimately demands that God exists, and then arriving at God as a necessity for everything that isn't God? Wow that's some intense brainpower.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            Everything we can model is derived from something we can't model.
            Logic demands the thing we can't model exists. You demand calling it God and adding baggage.

            • 3 months ago
              Anonymous

              >Everything we can model is derived from something we can't model.

              Confusing laws of logic with metaphysical entities again bub. You refuse to learn don't you?

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Confusing laws of logic with metaphysical entities
                How? Say something retard. Logic demands the thing we can't model exists. You're the one that apparently can't conceive of this without adding metaphysical baggage.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Logic demands the thing we can't model exists.
                All logic demands is that for any argument or conclusion, certain axiomatic assumption may exist as a source. And this is only axiomatic logic, which is only a subset of logic.

                When you talk about "existence" of models you are making a metaphysical statment that has nothing to do with laws of logic. Confusing your faith with logic is a constant theme in your posts. This is a middle school tier confusion and you should be ashamed of yourself

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >only a subset of logic
                All logic has the same fundamental causal structure that's reproducible in any medium. Any explanation, description or model you can come up with obeys this structure.
                >When you talk about "existence" of models
                When do I do that? Why pretend? The models model things.
                >Everything we can model is derived from something we can't model.

                Anyway, I grow tier of your women like illogical screeching, deflection, tangents and seething. The reek of estrogen is getting on my nerves now. I will conclude this thread with a final debunk soon.

                Will you finally muster the ability to put together even a single coherent thought that relates to anything actually said? Or will you regurgitate yet another irrelevant precooked reddit meme?

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Here's a wholesale refutal of OP's cosmological argument.

                1. Causality: It cannot be presumed that laws of causality as observed are a property of the Universe. It can be arrived through inductive reasoning at best. Which disqualifies them as axioms for a rigorous proof for existence of God.

                a. But presuming that causality does exist....

                2. Infinite regress: The existence of laws of Causality does not logically necessiate the existence of God since chains of causality can go on forever and there's no logical proof that this should not be the case.

                b. But presuming that infinite regress is not possible.....

                3. The Prime Mover: The laws of causality apply to things within the Universe . And since the Universe does not exist within itself, it logically follows that Causality does not necessarily apply to the Universe itself. This means that the Universe can have a beginning without a cause.

                c. But presuming that things outside the Universe are subject to causality....

                4. The Contradiction: If all causality ends at the Prime mover then by (c) mentioned above causality applies to the Prime Mover itself. Which concludes that something caused the Prime mover thus rendering it non-Prime and leading to an infinite regress, which contradicts (b) . This is a contradiction.

                5(Bonus) : The Universe is observed to be non-linear, dynamic and chaotic. Even the initial state of a three body problem cannot be analytically derived from its final state. This means that chain of causalities loop back into themselves. Thus putting a dent on the idea that every event is caused to exist by a Prime mover. (Though this still leaves open the question for "existence" or "being")

                Counter-arguments:

                OP tries to counter the contradiction in (4) by claiming that
                >Everything we can model is derived from something we can't model.
                Since he fails to elaborate further, I presume he's arguing that God is something we cannot "model". He fails to show why God is free from the laws of Causality. And if he's arguing that God is above it then it is a Faith based argument since the proof itself does not conclude that God is above causality by virtue of (c).

                God can either be an entity that can be derived from self evident axioms or it can be an axiom itself which doesn't need explaination and is arrived at through faith or observation. Since we cannot directly observe God, faith remains the only option, since God certainly cannot be necessitated through Prime Mover logic as become evident from 1 - 4.

                Tldr:
                Q E D

                Ciao

  34. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    What years of faulty logic does to a mf

  35. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    I think the prime mover is still a rational argument, given further scientific evidence.

    We don't find an eternal universe in the traditional sense of the word. It is not a perpetual universe that has been recycling itself forever.

    It looks like it had a beginning, and if it had a beginning it had a cause. The First Cause is probably God (instead of multiverse).

    If one says "The current model of the universe actually exhibits a eternal universe."
    Then I would say, that before the big bang, the universe did not exist as an eternal and timeless state. You really think for all eternity there was an egg of infinitely dense and hot mat? Why did it not erupt sooner? Or if you think matter was created due to expansion of space, then you think space was shrunk down infinitesimally forever? Why did it not expand sooner?

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      If you are arguing from the position of Big Bang cosmology. Then I must inform that in certain cosmological models, the Universe remains eternal, in a state of constantly expanding and contracting. So the idea that Universe had a beginning is not confirmed.

      And if Big Bang really was the beginning and nothing came before it, even then I would say that a God that caused it is not necessary. I know it may not make sense to our monkey brain logic. In physics we always come across objects, like virtual particles that pop in and out of existence randomly.

      A true proof for the existence of God would actually be a demonstration of God creating the Universe. Which cannot happen since we live in the Universe.. Hence God is unfalsifiable and unprovable.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        >In physics we always come across objects, like virtual particles that pop in and out of existence randomly.
        This is an theoretical construct of field theory which ends up being a math device to make equations work or fit equations to observed data, just like renormalization is used to avoid infinities in in QFT. picrel. This says nothing about ontic acausality. You always end up with these cope explanations when you try to fit observed data with the belief is a materialist world view of observer independent matter.

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          >And if Big Bang really was the beginning and nothing came before it, even then I would say that a God that caused it is not necessary
          You would, no doubt, because of your presupposition and question begging reasoning, say that.
          >A true proof for the existence of God would actually be a demonstration of God creating the Universe
          empiricism is about observations in the physical universe
          Explained here
          >. The "beginning" of the Universe cannot happen within the Universe.
          and here

          >Because it's made up
          It is not. I did not make up logic.
          >We can observe a tree grows from an acorn if it is given dirt and water and sunlight and time and space and many other such causal factors
          Yeah, because that is a physical phenomenon, so you can use empirical methods and observation. We are talking about what caused the physical world. This cause is by definition not physical and not in the physical world, so you can't use this for of epistemic justification. That's why I used a logical argument as opposed to appealing to the sensible.
          >but where in this is the astrally uncaused cause
          It's not astral. The stars are part of the universe. They are contingent, like all physical objects. We are talking about the necessary cause of those things
          > from the transcendental reality of non-contingent being?
          Yes, this part is correct. Something can't be both transcendental and astral though. So you phrased that poorly. So something transcendental would necessarily not be observable by the senses. The transcendental IS non-physical.
          >It's not there at all. You're declaring it just-so and then harrumphing that anyone who disagrees with your revelation is illogical
          No. I constructed a logical argument. Logic, by the way, is also not observable through the senses. It is also non-physical and transcendental. Do you deny logic exists because you can't observe it like a tree growing from an acorn? There are different forms of epistemic justification besides observing with the senses.
          >Well if the whole point of "logic" is to obfuscate dogmatic jibberish then I suppose being illogical is an imperative for those who love truth.
          I have not mentioned religion or dogma in this thread.

          You can't observe physical data from within the system of the event which led to the booting up of physicality. You would need to set up the physics experiment prior to physicality.

          Also, you can't observe your great, great, great grandparents having the sex that created you either, but that doesn't take away the fact that it happened.
          >There's no distinction between a supposed cause and its supposed effect (and causes are also effects and effects causes), nor between the supposed causal thing and the supposed thing that is the effect
          Not true. Take the situation of a virtual reality. The virtual time and space gets booted up with the pushing of the run button. see pick related.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        whoops
        this

        >In physics we always come across objects, like virtual particles that pop in and out of existence randomly.
        This is an theoretical construct of field theory which ends up being a math device to make equations work or fit equations to observed data, just like renormalization is used to avoid infinities in in QFT. picrel. This says nothing about ontic acausality. You always end up with these cope explanations when you try to fit observed data with the belief is a materialist world view of observer independent matter.

        was to you
        and this

        >And if Big Bang really was the beginning and nothing came before it, even then I would say that a God that caused it is not necessary
        You would, no doubt, because of your presupposition and question begging reasoning, say that.
        >A true proof for the existence of God would actually be a demonstration of God creating the Universe
        empiricism is about observations in the physical universe
        Explained here
        >. The "beginning" of the Universe cannot happen within the Universe.
        and here
        [...]
        You can't observe physical data from within the system of the event which led to the booting up of physicality. You would need to set up the physics experiment prior to physicality.

        Also, you can't observe your great, great, great grandparents having the sex that created you either, but that doesn't take away the fact that it happened.
        >There's no distinction between a supposed cause and its supposed effect (and causes are also effects and effects causes), nor between the supposed causal thing and the supposed thing that is the effect
        Not true. Take the situation of a virtual reality. The virtual time and space gets booted up with the pushing of the run button. see pick related.

        also and the post i referenced with regard to this
        >The "beginning" of the Universe cannot happen within the Universe.
        is here

        >If the Universe does not exist within itself, ie if the universe is not the sum of its parts but something existing apart from itself ("outside of itself", which would actually be "something outside of something not itself" unless we violate LNC), then it is not the Universe, it is, by definition, God.

        I'll address this one argument since this is actually a valid counter as opposed to all the other attempts at begging the question and stating your opinions as facts.

        Something that is a sum of parts does not necessarily have the properties of those parts. An assembly machine can be built entirely out of gears possessing the quality of roundness yet not be round itself. This is also true for the Universe. The "beginning" of the Universe cannot happen within the Universe. So by logic its an event outside of the Universe and hence does not necessitate that the laws of causality, namely that everything that beguns has a cause, be applicable to it.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      Big bang is not relevant. The point about the prime mover stands if the universe is eternal. Time doesn't enter into it, it's a specific form of a more general thing.

  36. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    How does the unmoved mover validate the idea that the theistic Christian God is real, and that he produced a israeli son over 2000 years ago? There seems to be a rather large logical gap here.

  37. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Unmoved, sure - absolute idealism, big bang, infinite universe of universes... What does any of that have to do with Christianity?

  38. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    This guys so badly wants to believe that God exists

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *