[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/lit/ - Literature

[Advertise on 4chan]


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.


[Advertise on 4chan]


File: Saint Thomas Aquinas.jpg (76 KB, 400x599)
76 KB
76 KB JPG
Is this the best argument in favor of the existence of God?.

Do you have any rebuttal?.

From the Summa Theologica:

>The existence of God can be proved in five ways.

>The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.
>>
>>19457501
>The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause. In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or only one. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.

>The third way is taken from possibility and necessity, and runs thus. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible to be and not to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which is possible not to be at some time is not. Therefore, if everything is possible not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence. Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence---which is absurd. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has been already proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God.
>>
File: 715.png (158 KB, 369x275)
158 KB
158 KB PNG
>>19457501
>The existence of God can be proved
>>
>>19457501
>The fourth way is taken from the gradation to be found in things. Among beings there are some more and some less good, true, noble and the like. But "more" and "less" are predicated of different things, according as they resemble in their different ways something which is the maximum, as a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest; so that there is something which is truest, something best, something noblest and, consequently, something which is uttermost being; for those things that are greatest in truth are greatest in being, as it is written in Metaph. ii. Now the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus; as fire, which is the maximum heat, is the cause of all hot things. Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.

>The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end. Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.

End quote.

What's the atheist/agnostic answer?.
>>
>>19457501
Yes that works. We use this type of reasoning in science as well.
>>
>>19457501
>Be a thing
>Move
Aquinas: HOLY FUCK, GOD EXIST WTF
>>
>>19457539
It's called being wise beyond your years.
>>
>>19457509
Prove the prime mover is the god of Abraham.
>>
>>19457559
Why? I'm a Neoplatonist as long as you're not an atheist anymore it's all good.
>>
>>19457509
That instead of being guided via the all knowing all acting God , trial and error over millennia was the cause of existence as we know it, and that our lives and empires are far to short to speak of what creation is or is not. Atheists believe in the fact that random chance brought us here and hope of a creator runs opposite to the inherent nihilism in random chance dictating everything. Atheists think the same thing about "God" no matter what is said.
>>
>>19457568
>not an atheist anymore
I never was. Point being STA was arguing for a specific God, was he not?

>whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another
Proof? I mean this is an observation, not an axiom.

>some more and some less good, true, noble and the like
Relative to what? Does he know of objective good? Because that'd be even more impressive.

Also we're making a lot of assumptions about cause and effect everywhere here.
>>
>>19457559
The 4,200-page version of the Summa Theologica that I download in pdf is dedicated to proving that Yahweh, the LORD, the Father, is the perfect candidate for this position. But you can debate that with Christians, I'm just a Platonist who likes Aristotle, Aquinas and Christianity.

My conception of God is the same as Plato, which fits perfectly with Aristotle's first mover. So what's your question again?.

>>19457568
Not me, but Neoplatonism is based.
>>
>>19457639
>So what's your question again?
I don't really have one because there isn't anything fit to question. Its just a bunch of assumptions disguised as axioms all strung together. Its not even wrong.
>>
*Actualizes a potential fart*
>>
Infinite regress not being very satisfying does not make it logically impossible, lmao WTF
>>
>"The purpose of an acorn is to become an oak."
Did Aquinas not know what squirrels eat?
>>
>>19457501
1.
>It is certain
>evident to our senses
Presupposes God.

2.
>world of sense
>efficient cause
Presupposes God.

3.
>We find in nature things
>that are possible to be and not to be
Presupposes God. Also presupposes either potentia in God's actions or an external second power which is pure potentia and God eternally acts on it.


4.
>some more and some less good, true, noble
Presupposes God.
>different things
Also presupposes the Holy Trinity. If multiplicity exists there is real multiplicity in God. Otherwise multicity has no basis in reality and is just imaginary.

5.
>act for an end
Telos presupposes God, namely a God who can act in different ways and chooses to actualize certain potentia and not others.
>>
All five of your points essentially say the same thing so I think it's a bit silly to say you have five points instead one

>How could x do y without z?

Well, what if there is another variable?

Or what if time actually is infinite and a first mover isn't exactly necessary? Perhaps time is on a circle instead of a straight line as we often view it. Things move because they have always moved.

What if this is all a dream in some beings head from another universe?

I could go on all night, but really my point is that the existence of god is just another hypothetical answer that I can come up with to explain why we exist. Just because god seems like a logical answer - and honestly it really does considering how little we know of what happened at the beginning of time - doesn't mean that it has to be the answer.

Until there is actual proof of a god existing and having created this universe, I won't believe in one. Similarly, I won't believe that I'm in some beings dream from another universe either even though I could probably make a decent argument for how I could be. You can try to logic yourself into believing it, but that won't work for me because I am not a man of faith.

Honestly, where we come from doesn't even concern me because I know that we could never find that out, at least in my lifetime. It troubled me a lot as an adolescent but I learned to take a stoic approach to it. I can't control how I came to be, I can't control the fact that I'll never know how the universe. So, really, who gives a shit?
>>
>>19457507
>Doesn't bother providing any arguments and just resorts to frog posting.
>>
>>19457581
There's only one God.
>>
>>19457501
>whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again.
sure
>But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover
Calling god a first mover is not a proof of god. You're just hoping there's a first mover and that it's not turtles all the way down. You have no reason to do this unless you already believed in god and decided to combine him with another mere belief, that of a first mover, for the sake of avoiding the embarassment of defending capeshit theology by replacing it with something more logic-y
>>
>>19457887
Okay, retard
Do you seriously think the existence of God can be proven?
>>
>>19457950
Yes, but not using something other than God as if it somehow has prior ontological status. Logic is also from God. Essentially all existence is proof for God.
>>
>>19457501
I just choose to believe, it makes me feel good. Am I a peasant for thinking this way? Perhaps, but I enjoy my life and find meaning in it.
>>
>>19457501
All of these refute the existence of a god, he's just to much of a brainlet to realize it.
Captcha:PDGAG
>>
>>19457986
So much for human free will..
Now with God proven I'm forced to believe, faith is worthless
>>
>>19458058
You're forced to believe if you want to be logically consistent. You can chose not to, but this isn't a 'real' choice. More like a privation of goodness, it's imaginations you create to justify unbelief in Christ.
>>
>>19458109
No. You've DESTROYED my free will by showing me Aquinas
>>
>>19457793
>>19457793
>All five of your points essentially say the same thing so I think it's a bit silly to say you have five points instead one
It's only one argument not five; the only thing that I find wrong is that he is saying that he can prove God existence with reason which is insane, instead of saying just that "believing in God is something rational, you can use this argument".

>Or what if time actually is infinite and a first mover isn't exactly necessary?. Perhaps time is on a circle instead of a straight line as we often view it. Things move because they have always moved.
Aquinas conception of the universe is the same as Cantor, a universe which start at time, infinite. Aquinas isn't defending the Kalam cosmological argument, and Cantor own concept of Transfinitum and Absolutum is adequate for Roman Catholic theology.

>What if this is all a dream in some beings head from another universe?
Yes, we are living in a fucking matrix, Plato literallly hold this position and is still compatible with the arguments.

>Until there is actual proof of a god existing and having created this universe, I won't believe in one.
We don't have proofs of his inexistence either. So why don't believe in God?. Isn't existence enough?.
>>
>>19458135
>why don't believe in God
To start, his most aggressive proponents are all petty moralizers who expect you to agree with them because the thing they can't actually cite wills it.
>>
>>19458125
Aquinas is a cringe heretic. My argumentation actually refutes Aquinas.
>>
>>19457501
>whatever is in motion is put in motion by another
And that first thing that moved to move everything else is god. Only, aquinas JUST said that it's impossible for something to move without being moved first. So either it is impossible for God to move or he was moved by something else, both gtfo'ing his own argument. A child could refute this medieval, superstitious bullshit.
>>
>>19458264
He doesn't believe God moved though?
>>
File: 1634103496147.jpg (41 KB, 564x560)
41 KB
41 KB JPG
>>19457684
>>
>>19458283
If God doesn't move then he cannot put anything into motion, Aquinas says so in the next sentence:
>a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality
Meaning: putting something into motion is motion
>>
>>19457730
Of course they presuppose god you fucking moron, Hes arguing for the existence of god. Is this the average atheist midwit meme irl?
>>
>>19458377
Hes not arguing for the existence of God, he says he is proving it. Presupposing the existence of something you are trying to prove maybe used to fly in the middle ages when people thought witches were real and the plague was due to smells, but most of human understanding has advanced beyond that. You belonging to the minority who wasn't part of that progress puts you calling anyone a moron in stark contrast.
>>
>>19458264
>>19458362
It is understood that when we speak of God we are speaking of a being who is capable of everything
>>
>>19458377
So then make a logical argument that doesn't only work if god exists. How the fuck is an atheist going to get on board with you if you have to believe in god for the points being made to make sense.

If you are trying to prove something, you need PROOF, not some fucking schizo level argument.
>>
>>19458402
That's why Aquina's "proves" are so ridiculous and self defeating, yes.
>>
>>19458362
>a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act.
Actually you have a point. For Aquinas God is literally identical to pure act so is in ever-movement. Don't ask how the Son incarnated is He is pure act though.
>>
>>19458402
>hey what if there were a being capable of everything
>that would be GOD
brilliant proof there tommy
>>
>>19458415
*proofs
>>
>>19457730
Look at it from the other side, any argument that tries to prove its nonexistence also presupposes its nonexistence.
>>
>>19458377
I'm not even atheist. I am just showing that the Holy Trinity is the presupposition for all thought and discourse. To say you can prove God using logic is futile because logic does not exist without God, you'd be assuming the thing you are trying to prove.
>>
>>19458419
If he is in movement then, according to aquinas, there must have been something that put him into motion.
>>
>>19458422
Yes, that is the point. Which shows the existence of God by reduction to absurdity of the contrary.
>>
>>19458201
You did not present an argument. You gestured towards one that may exist.
>>
>>19458420
>hey what if there were a being capable of everything
>that would be GOD
Yes?. That's literally the definition of God.
>>
>>19458422
Wrong. To presuppose any result beforehand is counterproductive.
>>
>>19458434
Is this a slogan or an argument?
>>
>>19458439
No.
That's a feature, of some gods.
>>
>>19458462
I thought we were arguing for just one? Uhhh, redpill me on polythomism?
>>
>>19458452
You just want to argue, not discuss. If God is in motion, who put him into motion, if God doesn't move how does he move anything else. Aquina's cop-out is to say this cannot go on forever, there must have been a first thing about which everything he just posited isn't true. Then he makes 2 unforgivable leaps: 1-to not see that if one thing can be moved without a cause that means nothing can be moved without a cause loses meaning and 2-to presuppose a personalised being as the first mover. None of this stuff follows, it's all medieval superstition
>>
>>19458442
>To presuppose any result beforehand is counterproductive.
Did you presuppose this or derive it from something? If so, did you not presuppose anythign in your derivation?
>>
>>19458485
I derived it from the hundreds of years of experience humanity has in finding answers, yes. Presupposing the result of your findings has been shown again and again to lead to wrong conclusions.

>did you not presuppose anythign in your derivation?
Thats not the point, get out with your dishonest post-modern attempts to detail the conversation - this is about presupposing the _result_ of your inquiry.
>>
>>19458496
*derail
>>
>>19457501
>The existence of God can be proved
Its only mistake is a confusion of terms at the beginning, you cannot prove the existence or non-existence of God a priori; that's why no successful argument for God's existence arises from reason alone.

However, the rest is perfect, just modify the "proved" and say that it is an argument to show that the belief in a God is something rational and is quite good.
>>
Huge problem with these arguments, is that I can always present a "parody-argument" that cuts out unnecessary stuff and presents a simpler->better explanation. Primordial atom, etc (I can make anything up, we're on equal grounds here)

Does anything in the bare-bones version even force me to move away from materialism?

I know that the follow-up arguments Aquinas (Craig?) presents is supposed to show that only an immaterial mind could be eternal, sit around unchanging forever sans time, and then do something. (warning bells should start ringing here)
But stuff like that is extremely unpersuasive to me. Immaterial mind, what's that? Can such a thing possibly exist?
As far as I know, minds are material, or at the very least heavily depend on something material, such as the brain.
Showing that this is not the case, is a massive hurdle which is just ignored.

Fist easy together with dogma Christians already believe, so I guess there is no need to persuade people. lmao
Give me a break.
Critique against people using it in this day and age, not Aquinas, btw
Seems people don't think they have to defend anything, if they just go like: "Uhuhuu, but Aquinas didn't intend it to be used the way I'm using it"
>>
>>19458504
>you cannot prove the existence or non-existence of God a priori
>prove a priori
Why do you retards insist on using words you don't understand? Are you an American? Next thing you'll tell me it's possible to prove something a priori per say....
>>
>>19458462
>No
Are you retarded, the concept of God is a omnipotent,omniscient and omnipresentbeing.
>>
>>19458515
>Immaterial mind, what's that? Can such a thing possibly exist?
Your reasoning is proof that it exists. Your mind and conscious experience isn't divisible into parts even though it has multiplicity. Material things however are all divisible into parts.
>>
>>19458483
The idea is basically that his observations (that things need causes) has put Aquinas at an impossibility after analysing them
This impossibility cannot be! So there must be a "rule breaker", Aquinas calls this being "purely actual"

People make the mistake of thinking it's a deductive argument. But that would have required all other logical space to have been exhausted, which is blatantly wrong
We are left with a bunch of options, not just Aquinas preferred rule breaker
>>
>>19458533
Oh really? Not even all Christians agree on that.
>>
>Assume Logic to show God
>God is source of Logic
Based argument. Did nobody point this out to him?
>>
>>19458535
WOW
you wrote that sentence, and still there remain people that isn't convinced about the immateriality of the mind
they never thought of that

fuck off
this is not the topic being discuss
it's not a debate to be ended with a short post like that
and you are retarded, if you think it can be ended
>>
>>19458539
Not according to Aquinas, according to him you are left with only one option
>and this everyone understands to be God.
I agree there are many conclusions to be drawn from his argument, myopic and ill-informed as it may (and because of the time it was made even necessarily) be. But his conclusion is obviously the wrong one.
>>
>>19458483
>If God is in motion, who put him into motion, if God doesn't move how does he move anything else.
>How
We are talking about a being capable of everything to which no rule can be applied. How the hell do you think he does it? It's the fucking God, he or that do it itself.
>>
>>19458556
There are many people who saw Christ rise from the dead and were "unconvinced". "convinced" means nothing. It's not a result of lack of information, but a result of ill disposition of will and pride which clouds the intellect.
>>
>>19458566
Do you think claiming that there was people that saw the risen Jesus is going to persuade a materialist?
I don't believe in magic.
>>
File: 1587315701770.jpg (18 KB, 500x614)
18 KB
18 KB JPG
>Why yes, I am an Aquinisian Materialist, how could you tell?
>>
>>19458561
So you are saying Aquina's reasoning here is fundamentally wrong. I don't disagree.
>>
>>19458577
>materialist
Nothing logical is going to persuade someone who holds a worldview which makes logic and knowledge impossible. Your whole outlook is based on contradiction and incoherency. Until you change it and clear your conscience I'm afraid you won't be able to see the light of Christ.
>>
>>19458557
>according to him you are left with only one option
Huh, really?
Well, he's blatantly wrong about that
so unless we want to larp as 13th century monks, I think we are allowed to bring modern philosophical knowledge into these discussion
>>
>>19458594
Do you think presenting a strawman of my worldview, is going to make me believe in magic?
>>
>>19458594
Stop derailing the argument about Aquina's proofs and reply to the many open questions in the thread. Do you have any argument that goes beyond "there must be something to cause all of existence so of course it must be the god I believe in"?
>>
>>19458603
>he's blatantly wrong about that
Such as?
A BOLD claim
>>
>>19458603
The thread topic is "is this the best argument for the existence of God?" the conclusion is it's "blatantly wrong" - what is there left to discuss?
>>
>>19458543
Christianity is out of the question, I am talking about philosophy and theology not religion
>>
>>19458614
Read the thread.
>>
>>19458556
>immateriality of the mind
Mind or intellect?.

Why you consider the mind (or the intellect depending on your answer from the question above) to be immaterial?.

Isn't the mind or the intellect in the brain just like emotions and can be reduced to brain processes?.
>>
>>19458614
The problem of induction?
His knowledge of how moving stuff needing a mover is arrived at through inductive reasoning

He could be having a particularly vivid dream?

The universe may not be rational.

Assuming the universality of the laws of nature.

All the stuff about the impossibility of infinite regress. I believe it fails. (but that's an actual debate, not something I can just dismiss)

He would need to show how materialistic parody arguments fail (they don't)
>>
>>19458584
Retard
>>
>>19458616
Blatantly wrong about it being a deductive argument
>>
>>19458635
Stop derailing the thread and answer to the challenges of your position re:the proof for the existence of your God. The standard Christian way of ignoring the questions even contemplating would devastate your position and instead concentrate on semantics of things out of your experience won't work here. Do you have any argument above "something must have started it all and I jump to the conclusion it is the personal god of my belief" or not?
>>
>>19458646
I don't even understand what you are trying to say here. Aquinas obviously saw it as a deductive argument as he deduced his point from it.
>>
>>19458643
A good point well argued. So you give up?
>>
>>19458635
>Why you consider the mind to be immaterial?
Uhh.. I don't. Christians do, cuz dogma.
Far as I know everything that exist is material.
I've never seen anything immaterial, nor do I have any other good reasons to believe there are in fact such things
>>
>>19458655
Well, he would have been wrong about that
I don't think this is a particularly hot take
>>
>Do you have any rebuttal?.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias
>>
>>19458675
Tell that to the retarded Christians who see Aquinas as a genius and his drivel "the proof for the existence of God".
>>
File: 1635986138739.jpg (98 KB, 750x900)
98 KB
98 KB JPG
>>19457501
Just wait until atheists find out transcendental Thomism, and until they realize that Aquinas philosophy is fully compatible with the theory of evolution and Christianity.
>>
>>19458617
Okay?

Aquinas' argument doesn't get you to the God of the old testament + Jesus.
It doesn't get you to a God with those 3 omni-properties either.
>>
You don't need to appeal to religious arguments or anything complex.

The existence of God can be proved with one simple question: Why is there something instead of nothing ? Why does reality exist instead of not existing ? There's no rational answer besides that something like God might have created reality (which himself doesn't need a cause).
>>
>>19458680
Thats not a rebuttal, that's underscoring the fallacy of jumping from "something must have caused all this" to "some guy a bronze age desert cult made up 4000 years ago must have been the reason because we still talk about him"
>>
>>19458697
Is being literally unfalsifiable and compatible with any and all observations the signs of a strong theory, now?
>>
>>19458699
Or you could just read the thread and get gtfo'd with what you hilariously call "rationality", christfag
>>
>>19458703
It is, because it undermines the very idea of teleology underneath Aquinas' philosophy.
>>
>>19458699
>(which himself doesn't need a cause)
Now explain why it's reasonable to believe this can't be a property of reality, if it can be a property of God.
>>
>>19458699
And answering thos with "God" is known as an argument from ignorance
>>
>>19458699
>Why is there something instead of nothing ?
wHY Is There SOme GOD iNsteaD of NOgod???

Actual childlike mentality
>>
>>19458709
Oh a rebuttal to aquinas you mean, nevermind, I misunderstood - you're right, it is.
>>
>>19458699
Are you ashamed of this post?
>>
File: EbmlNQxWoAE8W7M.jpeg.jpg (156 KB, 1044x1313)
156 KB
156 KB JPG
>>19458716
>Actual childlike mentality
Pic related
>>
>>19458727
Ok, Leibniz
Why is it unexpected that there is something, rather than nothing
but, expected that there is some God, instead of No-God?
>>
Pretty sure that if you could prove God, someone would have started using that proof to proselytize.

But that's just me using common sense..
>>
File: 1636537696821.webm (232 KB, 400x224)
232 KB
232 KB WEBM
Wow, Christianity once again being annihilated easily. Why does this easy battle have to be fought again and again, why can't you people just find out by yourself how ridiculous your religion is and use your mental capacity for something that might actually have a positive impact? The abrahamic religions are truly a disease
>>
>>19458708

Christianity doesn't even appeal to rationality, they employ a transcendental argument and have a very specific perspective about what God is and what he did. In my perspective, I only reach the conclusion that God exists, but I don't know anything else about God (it's called Deism).

>>19458710

Beucase reality is material and the material world cannot cannot have inherent self-generating mechanisms. Or let's put it another way: to exist requires something, to not exist doesn't. Non-existence is the standard, while existence is the exception, which means that existence has some conditions by which it starts happening / being / existing. These conditions must also have a reason for existing instead of not existing.

>>19458715

In a sense it is. It's ignorance in the sense that as humans we cannot hold all knowledge. A lot of people wrongly assume that humans are capable of knowing everything, but there's so much information in the universe, it's impossible for any single being to comprehend everything. Moreover, humans are very limited and they'll never be able to answer why reality exists instead of not existing since science uses empirical observations as its method and you can't observe anything to understand why reality exists since this in itself is a question that goes beyond the capability of empirical observations. This doesn't mean though that science is useless, it can serve to describe / explain the processes of reality, but it can't explain a priori conditions of possibility for the universe since it would require empirical observation of the very specific moment when reality started existing (just think how absurd it is to believe you can observe this since it requires you to be with 1 foot in what effectively could be called non-existence or non-reality in order to observe the transition to reality).

So, the only rational or logical conclusion is that something like God created the universe. This is the only logical conclusion we can reach as humans with the knowledge that we have and the mental abilities that we have. Keep in mind that even genius philosophers like Spinoza or scientists like Mendeleev believed in what I say right now, so it's not just my stupid take on it.

>>19458716
>>19458719

No. Taking a religious stance is actually the wrong way to approach the question of the existence of God. Religions take a biased stance and claim they know what God is and what he did. They have a certainty, while in my position (Deism), the only certainty I have is that God exists and that's because it's the rational conclusion to a line of thought, not because I just chose to believe so (which is the case for religions).
>>
>>19458736
Leibniz thought thatthe fact that there is something and not nothing requires an explanation. The explanation he gave was that God wanted to create a universe which makes God the simple reason that there is something rather than nothing. The best thing is that this argument of Leibniz is compatible with the argument of Aristotle and Aquinas.
>>
>>19458759
Seriously buddy, read the thread. Every one of your pathetic copes to keep up belief in your little "god" has been btfo'd over and over. Its not rational, no matter how much you keep telling yourself it is.
>>
>>19458759
It always boils down to the same idiocy.
>all this complexity needs an explanation, there cannot be complexity without a cause!
>the cause must be god, a complex being!
but this complexity doesn't need a cause?
>No! This one thing I made up does not need to conform to the rules I also made up!
This is Deist rationality
>>
>>19458768

>Doesn't answer with a counter argument
>Lol you got BTFO'd read the thread

Even scientists reached the conclusion that the Big Bang theory is not adequate anymore. Science struggles to explain even quantum mechanics, what makes you think it can explain the conditions of possibility for the existence of the universe ? The magnitude of this question alone puts in perspective the absolute limitations of humans.

>>19458759

Also I meant Leibniz here instead of Spinoza.
>>
>>19458754
Post Nobel or GTFO
>>
>>19458754
spooky webm
>>
>>19458439
If he's capable of everything why doesn't he prove he exists right now?
>>
>>19458778
>Science cannot explain the universe so God is real
If nothing can come out of nothing then who created God?
>>19458779
>Appeal to authority
You just said science doesn't factor into the discussion, so irrelevant. Again: if nothing can exist without being created who created God?
>>
>>19458759
>Beucase reality is material and the material world cannot cannot have inherent self-generating mechanisms.
??????
>>
>>19458785
Silence is the language of God
>>
>>19458759
>it requires you to be with 1 foot
Do you think cosmologist used a spaceship with a time machine, to travel back to within 1 foot of the Big Bang
in order to make up the Big Bang theory?
>>
>>19458776

Again, I said I don't know anything about the nature of God. When did I say that God is a complex being ?

>but this complexity doesn't need a cause?

God, by definition, doesn't need a cause. Again, God MIGHT have a cause, but how can humans ever hope to know something like this ? Even Kant is aware that it's impossible to say anything with certainty about metaphysical subjects. The argument for God's existence is not 100% certain either (even Leibniz said so), but it's the only logical conclusion if we use our rationality alone, without being biased by any ideology. In other words, that's the best we can do as humans, anything else like "what is God ?" or "doesn't God need a cause too ?" are just redundant questions. If any person could answer this then we wouldn't have this discussion.

But again take into consideration that existence requires an explanation for why it exists, while non-existence doesn't. Existence cannot have it's cause in non-existence since non-existence is nothing.

>>19458776

I genuinely believe what I hold is the most logical and balanced approach to the question of God's existence. Please tell me what you believe instead and we'll see if your argument holds since mine is holding so far.
>>
>>19458796
No, silence is the language of a bronze age belief system btfo'd by a simple look at its inconsistencies with reality.
>>
>>19458795
It's called being full of shit
>>
>>19458810
>The flying spaghetti monster, by definition, doesn't need a cause. Again, The flying spaghetti monster MIGHT have a cause, but how can humans ever hope to know something like this ? Even Kant is aware that it's impossible to say anything with certainty about metaphysical subjects. The argument for The flying spaghetti monster's existence is not 100% certain either (even Leibniz said so), but it's the only logical conclusion if we use our rationality alone, without being biased by any ideology. In other words, that's the best we can do as humans, anything else like "what is The flying spaghetti monster ?" or "The flying spaghetti monster ?" are just redundant questions. If any person could answer this then we wouldn't have this discussion.
>>
>>19458759
>Or let's put it another way: to exist requires something, to not exist doesn't. Non-existence is the standard, while existence is the exception, which means that existence has some conditions by which it starts happening / being / existing. These conditions must also have a reason for existing instead of not existing.
Sounds like you've arrived at an infinite regression
Unless you think there is a particular reason the bullshit you just asserted, should not apply to God
>>
>>19458810
>But again take into consideration that existence requires an explanation for why it exists, while non-existence doesn't. Existence cannot have it's cause in non-existence since non-existence is nothing.

Again you undermine yourself with the same argument you don't seem to understand. You say:
>everything needs a cause in existence
>only god doesn't
So you are either saying:
>not everything needs a cause in existence
which nullifies your point from the first, if the cause is not needed you don't need to invent a god to be the cause.
Or you are saying:
>God has a cause.
In which case there's a god of God and a god of those gods, ad infinitum. The rational way to look at this would be to realize both are impossible and cannot be the answer. The rational way would be to follow what you wrote yourself and realize that human understanding is limited without forgetting you made that point immediately after you made it and jump to "it follows that I understand there MUST be a god". You are not rational.
>>
>>19458788
>You just said science doesn't factor into the discussion, so irrelevant. Again: if nothing can exist without being created who created God?
>You
Bro you are talking to like two other people, I'm the Platonist, I only wrote at the beginning of the thread. For years I decided that God did exist and now the debates that I have are only with the Gnostics to show that God is good, not with the Atheists or Agnostics, that it's a waste of time. I'm a mere spectator, posting memes.
>>
>>19458810
>God, by definition, doesn't need a cause.
We get to define stuff into existence, now?
I by definition, have a 12 inch cock.
- - -
Doesn't seem to work!
>>
>>19458788

Read -> >>19458810

>>19458795

Reality is material (in other words, it's something, not "nothing" or "non-existence"). This material world cannot self-sustain since eternity because if we look at the cause-effect chain in regression and accept that all reality started from 1 point (big bang), even then you cannot explain why that matter exists.

The only rule by which reality would be self-sustaining is that "nothingness" or "non-existence" GENERATES matter. But that's just absurd, nothingness cannot generate matter because:

a) It it could do so, then matter would generate infinitely from nothing as we speak. So you'd have something popping out of nowhere near you right now, which doesn't happen. We know pretty well that matter doesn't just start existing out of nothing.

b) By definition nothingness is absolute nothing, so it can't hold any conditions of possibility for matter to start existing. So it's paradoxical to say "reality comes out of nothing".

>>19458808

No, but the Big bang doesn't require observation of a priori conditions of reality. To put it in perspective, imagine a circle (closed circle of course, so it has bounds). We as humanity are at any point in the circle except the middle. What scientists do is to calculate the distance from our point to the middle in order to show when the universe started. But they can't explain why the circle exists at all. The Big bang theory only goes as far as the first moments AFTER the universe started existing. But it can't go to "before" the universe existed (because you can't observe pre-reality since it would require you to be in pre-reality).
>>
>>19458810
Reality, by definition, doesn't need a cause.
there you go, solved the whole debacle, EZPZ
>>
>>19458828
Well, you are wrong.
>>
>>19458835
>a priori conditions of reality.
I mean, if you are already presupposing that you are right
of course you are going to be right

this is fucking dumb
>>
>>19458835
>You cannot explain why matter exists
>so it must be an omnipotent eternal being who did it!
>how can you explain that being existing and how he created matter?
>Oh you can't explain that. But it's fine in that case. You just believe it.
Why is there even a discussion? You seriously don't see that you are deluded?
>>
>>19458839
Has the scientific community proved the nonexistence of God?
>>
>>19458835
How did you rule out that reality exist by necessity?
you know.. like God
>>
To many people it is so painful to admit to not knowing that they make up something fanciful, unknowable to make themselves feel like they know. It's a psychological phenomenon, not a philosophical one.
>>
>>19458515
Aquinas wrote about all of that. But you actually have to read to get answers instead of producing sophmoric diatribes.
>>
>>19458831
It didn't work for you? I decided for myself that I, by definition, have a 12 inch cock, 10 billion dollars, and a smokin' hot babe for a wife.

Atheists hate this one simple trick!!!
>>
>>19458835
I could make some argument about Gods popping out of nothing, but I'm to lazy to phrase it

Literally nobody in physics that believes in an uncreated universe, believes it "popped" into existence from nothing, btw
>>
>>19458857
The concept of a personal god has been thoroughly refuted by simple arguments available to even children to which no Deist has yet come up with an answer that goes beyond "oh he's magic, it's easily refutable by definition and being able to say the refutation doesn't count is built in".
What does the scientific community have to do with that?
>>
>>19458865
Are you really gatekeeping me for not having read 700+ year old text
from a monk of a religion I don't believe in?

Well.. Did he have some good counterpoints to make?
Feel free to present them.
>>
>>19458857
The burden of proof is on whoever is making the claim that something exists.

With your logic, I can tell you there's 10 women in my room ready to take turns giving me a blowjob and you have to prove to me that these women don't exist or else your homosexual and going to hell
>>
>>19458888
Quads of truth, suspecting there really is a room full of bitches waiting to suck off this guy
>>
>>19458825

Yes, I thought about this too. God, by definition, is not tied to "existence" in the traditional sense. He "is" something that is not bound by anything physical (otherwise it wouldn't even make sense that He is the cause of reality). Again, it's a theory, just like Leibniz held. We can't have certainty on metaphysical subjects, I only hold that it's the most plausible theory.

>>19458820

This is reduction to absurdity, if you just started high school you shouldn't be posting on 4chan. Also go back to r3ddit.

>>19458827

I'm pretty specific about my words, but I'm kind of lazy to explain in absolute detail every single thing to avoid questions like yours. I'll just say that "God" in the Deist perspective is not part of existence (by existence I mean the universe and everything material and what is tied to materiality by necessity like physical laws). So in this sense, language forces me to use the verb "exist" for God to say "God exists". This can create confusion because if I say "everything needs a cause in existence", God is lumped together since if God *exists* then he's part of *existence*. Language creates the confusion, but when I say God exists, I only mean that he "is", but not in the traditional sense. I assume he has an existence that doesn't manifest through anything specific, which can seem pretty counter-intuitive.

But we have an example even in reality of something similar to what I mean: consciousness. Consciosuness itself is immaterial (even if we assume it's the effect of biological processes). I assume God is something similar to Consciousness (this might seem very Hegelian), but on a much larger scale and independent of any condition. Now, of course this brings forth other questions, but I'm not concerned to explain what God is because that's absolutely impossible, but of course we'd have to ask if God is sentient, if he has a will or not, or how the mechanisms of this "divine consciousness" work. It's all impossible to say.

>>19458831

Highschool, r3ddit, etc, if you don't have the mental capacity to bring arguments that go beyond the typical atheist senseless banter, then don't type at all.
>>
>>19458835
>We know pretty well that matter doesn't just start existing out of nothing
How do we know this?

Besides, we are talking about universes (which "contains" matter, but it's not like they ARE matter)
do we know that those don't start existing out of nothing?
composition/division fallacy, chough, chough
>>
>>19457501
The best of them boil down to half-decent argument for creationism being plausible + leap of faith. Your quote doesn't even fulfill the first part of that.
>>
>>19458891
It wasn't supposed to be banter

You, simply defined God as not needing a cause. As if that somehow solves the problem.
I can define literally anything. It doesn't make it real.

At least explain what property God has, that reality lack. That makes this special pleading, less special.
>>
>>19458891
>Consciosuness itself is immaterial
Proofs? This seems to be an issue of widespread debate, and remains unsettled.
I'm really exited to see what new piece of info you can bring.
>>
>>19458891
>when I say God exists, I only mean that he "is", but not in the traditional sense. I assume he has an existence that doesn't manifest through anything specific, which can seem pretty counter-intuitive
The joke still being that the same person that typed this drivel thinks of himself as "rational".
>god is not part of existence
So he doesn't exist, but
>he is
So he exists. But in another quasi-universe of your invention, where things that exist can exist without needing a god to create them.
You can believe in that universe, that's rational, that's not a leap. But believing that our universe, that isn't made up, has no god in the same way the universe where your god lives has no god is irrational? Your worldview is absurd.
>>
>>19458891
>I'm not concerned to explain what God is because that's absolutely impossible
And you accuse other people of "senseless banter?" If God cannot be explained, he is literally senseless, and all discussion of him is quite much so banter.
>>
>>19458835
>The only rule by which reality would be self-sustaining is that "nothingness" or "non-existence" GENERATES matter. But that's just absurd, nothingness cannot generate matter because:
>a) If it could do so, then matter would generate infinitely from nothing as we speak. So you'd have something popping out of nowhere near you right now, which doesn't happen. We know pretty well that matter doesn't just start existing out of nothing.
Well, don't be so sure about that. As a hypothetical, imagine the universe with 'nothing' as actually being a field that generates random possible particles of the smallest possible physical size, and does so on a time scale of arbitrary length. Hypothetically, you could even say they wink in and out of existence, and that the relative strengths of the fundamental forces as we know them were different, thermodynamics were different in this different state of the universe, etc. Anyway, the point is, if the universe was just a potentiality generating field, there is no contradiction to say that at x time, it returns zero, and at y time, it returns a positive integer.
Obviously I'm not saying this IS the case; just that we have no satisfactory answer to the apparent paradox of 'either something (matter/energy) always existed or it was created, but if it was created we get an infinite regression of cause-effect.'
>>
>>19458878
>The concept of a personal god has been thoroughly refuted by simple arguments available to even children to which no Deist has yet come up with an answer that goes beyond "oh he's magic, it's easily refutable by definition and being able to say the refutation doesn't count is built in".
Like?.

>What does the scientific community have to do with that?
That science does not prove that God does not exist, so you cannot conclude that I am wrong because there is no scientific study that demonstrates the non-existence of God in addition to the fact that modern epistemology gave in favor of an agnostic theism that is a position similar to the one that I have, then you can't say that what I think is something stupid either.
>>
>>19458888
based quads, I'm going to start a religion dedicated to this guy getting blown
>>
>>19458891
There you go on with the immaterial nonsense
why would you even believe there are such things?
What makes a thing immaterial?

What properties are granted by being immaterial?
By what mechanism does the immaterial interact with the physical?
>>
>>19458838

Yeah I wish it would be this easy. But why reality exists instead of not existing is forcing us to not accept that reality just doesn't need a cause. Existing is a much more complex process than non-existence. How can something as complex as the universe be the standard ? Everything we know works by some rational process, it's only natural that reality itself must work by some process too insofar as its material.

>>19458846

The only alternative to assuming a before / after distinction when it comes reality is to assume reality has always existed which doesn't make sense for the reason that I typed above.

>>19458852

In a sense, I'm just moving the burden of the explanation to something transcendental, but that's not my goal. Since reality is material, then it subordinates itself to certain laws or conditions and this means that the existence of the whole reality must be subject to a "rationale". Since reality is material, its reason for existing cannot be in reality itself. That would never explain why reality exists in the first place since it would require reality to generate out of nothing. This forces us to assume that something not bound by reality is the cause of reality. What is this "something" ? I call it "God", but the word "God" is filled with a lot of assumptions, a whole baggage of them. I use "God" only to indicate the meaning of this "something", but I don't want people to think I have a specific view of what God is.

>>19458860

I answered in this post in other replies.

>>19458875

I think the mainstream view of universe's beginning is that the whole universe is a huge quantum fluctation which they say it's extremely unlikely, but the infinity of time makes this unlikeliness likely.

But again, the same scientists would have no way to explain why quantum fluctuations exist instead of not existing. This is the most fundamental question of all in philosophy, perhaps in humankind. Maybe we'll just be forced to accept we are limited as beings (contrary to people believing science can answer everything). This naive optimism when it comes to science should stop. Science doesn't need to answer everything, it's enough if it can answer a lot of the mechanisms of how the universe works. For our practical purposes as humans, it's alright (a position John Locke held as well).
>>
>>19458937
Check out the concept of emergence
>>
>>19458928
>Like?
Read the fucking thread retard. Apparently the best arguments for the existence of God have been brought forward and not a single one of them hasn't been hilariously btfo'd. We're down to "God exists and doesn't exist and nothing about him can be explained".

Concerning your fixation with scientific studies: there are also no scientific studies that refute that there is a 25 light years tall giraffe that is also not a giraffe and exists without existing orbiting the sun next to earth writing all of your 4chan posts. There are many, many scientific studies though that show how that description of a being is inconsistent with what we know about the universe. There's some outlandish sounding scientific theories about the creation, inflation theory, infinite recurrence etc, none of them are proven, but they are consistent with the way we know the universe to work at least so far. The theory of a magic being simply creating it out of nothing without anything first creating that being is not consistent with what we know.
>>
>>19458937
So we are to deny an eternal past universe, because it's... too complicated?
I don't find that persuasive at all. Usually people try to get at it being a logical impossibility.

I know theist are not a big fan of this. But if you think the universe is complex, is a problem.
I think the universe + God, is even more complex.
>>
>>19458937
>I answered in this post in other replies
Not to my satisfaction, I'm sorry to say.

If it's okay for God to "just exist", that's what he does, no further explanations to be had
I really think it would be unfair to treat reality different simply because it lacks the property of immateriality
>>
>>19458937
>In a sense, I'm just moving the burden of the explanation to something transcendental
Or, to put it another way, you delude yourself into believing you have an explanation, but it's made up and doesn't really make sense. From the same person that wrote
>Christianity doesn't even appeal to rationality, they employ a transcendental argument
and lamented the tendency of humans to just make shit up when they don't know. I cannot take you seriously.
>>
>>19458899

1/1

How does the universe "contain" matter ? I mean the universe from what we know is not a container filled with matter. I think the mainstream view is that matter expands into an infinite space ? (this is another question: what does the universe / matter expand into ?). I mean I don't think scientists view the universe as something with definite boundaries anyway. So, I guess, the "space" in which matter is expanding already exists, but we notice the extent of this space only by observing the furthest point where matter exists.

How do we know that something doesn't come out of nothing ? It's, what Leibniz and even Kant would say, a priori knowledge or an innate knowledge. Well, Leibniz would word like this. Kant would say that our mind makes sense of reality by applying certain immutable principles like the principle of non-contradiction / cause-effect / principle of identity (no 2 perfectly identical things can exist simultaneously). Again, I've already said that everything I say is just the rational conclusion a HUMAN can reach. We are very limited beings and the way our mind works might just be a specific filter with its limitations. On the other hand though, this filter is fairly accurate as well since it allows us to interact with reality with predictibility. Which means that even reality to a high degree is predictable. Anyway, I'm digressing into other things.

So on one side we as humans cannot comprehend how something can come out of nothing because that's how we're built. We can imagine fictionally how something pops into existence, but can't comprehend how it would rationally work.

And on the other hand, we have a long streak of empirical evidence that shows us that things don't just "pop" into existence. Even on a quantum level, we cannot explain how "nothingness" (again, it's absolute nothingness, so nothing nothing) generates matter. Does nothingness clump together and form matter ? If this was the case, then it would happen constantly since it would be something like a law by which reality works. Yet we've never seen things popping into existence. I'm thinking about quantum mechanics and I'm not sure on this info, but I think I've read that quarks pop into existence ? I'm not sure, but this might be a technological limitation (meaning we can't see lower than that). Another answer to this would be that even if quarks pop into existence at a very very small level, saying that something on such a grand scale as the universe popped into existence all at once is an immensely huge leap.

>>19458907

Yea, I've said why God doesn't need a cause and I've said that it's a theory. You're not saying anything of substance by just pointing out "haha lol bro you didn't even think that God needs a cause contradiction haha". I've thought about all possible comebacks to what I think, you don't say anything new to me.

I can't explain what property God has, if I had that knowledge I would know what God is. I've explained this.
>>
>>19458914
Not him but most physicians hold the same position
>>
>he thinks motion is real
Check out this turbopleb
>>
>>19458928
Yeah, you are right.
God has not been proven, not exist. God is unfalsifiable (which should alarm your epistemology).
Unless you got some very speical God which belief there was a possible method to check if in fact was a false belief.

However, I think we are coming very close to proving that there exists to good reasons to believe God is real, rather than imaginary.
Slightly different claim.
>>
>>19458988
Oh god, it was just a matter of time until the half understood pop knowledge of quantum mechanics was going to come into play. Just stop, buddy. Let your stupid "argument" exist and not exist at the same time and Pop _into_ nothingness, it's a joke.
>>
>>19458377
Okay, I presuppose there is no God. Checkmate, theist!
>>
>>19458699
>If I move the "not needing a cause" off of the universe and onto a God, it makes me the big smart
cringe
>>
>>19458988
>mind makes sense of reality by applying certain immutable principles
That's a piss-poor argument in modern times. We know how bad the human mind is at dealing with high level math stuff like infinites, etc
Mind can't innately make sense of quantum stuff either

Bunch of stuff required for advanced cosmology is extremely counter-intuitive

Still these sciences produces results.
>>
>>19458951
>Read the fucking thread retard. Apparently the best arguments for the existence of God have been brought forward and not a single one of them hasn't been hilariously btfo'd
No wtf

>There are many, many scientific studies though that show how that description of a being is inconsistent with what we know about the universe. There's some outlandish sounding scientific theories about the creation, inflation theory, infinite recurrence etc, none of them are proven, but they are consistent with the way we know the universe to work at least so far. The theory of a magic being simply creating it out of nothing without anything first creating that being is not consistent with what we know.
Can you point out where the concept of God is inconsistent with those theories?.

>magic being
Existing is absurd to begin with.

Also pic related
>>
>>19458990
Aha, so the facts of reality are a consensus thing?
Also I think you have to dig back quite a few years to have your majority opinion.
Idiot
>>
File: 1637636621581.jpg (2.64 MB, 2545x1497)
2.64 MB
2.64 MB JPG
>>19458951
>>19459025
Wrong pic, this is the one.
>>
>>19459027
Here is another
>>
>>19458988

2/2

>>19458914

It's an assumption. It could be material or immaterial (when talking about human consciousness). If it's material, then it's the effect of biological processes (there is no organ that is consciousness itself. The brain might be thought of as the cause of consciousness I guess, but it would still boil down to biological processes).

So, if consciousness is material, by saying this we mean that consciousness is the effect of biological processes, which means that consciousness doesn't exist independently, but that it requires other factors to manifest.

It's in that sense that I say consciousness is immaterial. Consciousness itself as an effect is immaterial, but it's depends on biological processes to manifest.

Then I went from this to make an analogy to what I think God is. Since consciousness is immaterial in the sense I explained it, God maybe is consciousness as well (pure consciousness) with the exception that it's not tied to any material processes or factors for it to manifest. In this sense, God would exist, but not in the traditional sense. This view is very similar to Hegel, which is not my intention necessarily, just a coincidence.

>>19458916

Just because language constraints one to express himself in non conventional ways in order to explain what he wants to say doesn't mean that he is irrational. It only shows that language is pretty limited. You might read Hegel and Heidegger and think they're irrational when you see the way they write, or even Kant, yet once you understand the way they write, a lot of what they say start making sense.

>So he exists. But in another quasi-universe of your invention, where things that exist can exist without needing a god to create them

Don't put words into my mouth. I didn't say any other universe exists or that God is in another universe entirely or anything like that. It's really hard to explain, but it would just be outside of reality. Outside of reality there isn't any universe, it's nothing. Though the expression "outside of reality" is misleading as well. Maybe, "beyond" reality or transcends reality or exists in such a way that when the universe ceases to be, God still exists. The absence of the universe is the "place" I'm referring to when I speak of God being transcendental, but when the universe starts existing, I think God becomes one with the universe (so from transcendental he becomes immanent). But this particular thought is very recent so I'm not sure if it would be entirely correct to claim this.

And yes, doesn't exist in traditional sense. Everything is an assumption of course. If the counter-argument is that it's an assumption, then all metaphysics is an assumption, yet the question "why does reality exist instead of not existing ?" begs for an answer and science has none to give. So we're left to assumptions. The existence of these assumptions is testament to science's failure to answer the question.
>>
>>19459027
>>
>>19458988
>I've said why God doesn't need a cause
Aha, so you said it somewhere else? Cool. (because he's immaterial?)
Sounded like you thought is was solved by just asserting that he was uncreated. While this was a huge problem for reality, which you assert cannot be uncreated.
>>
>>19459039
Any particular reason you site physicists instead of modern neuroscientists?
>>
>>19458993
Parmenides was a dualist and believed in the One
>>
>>19459034
all of these refer to the allegorical "philosopher's god", which is just the traditional way of referring to something like the fundemental source of any actuality or possibility and whats beyond. nothing there implies the personal god of a theist
>>
>>19459040
>It's really hard to explain, but it would just be outside of reality. Outside of reality there isn't any universe, it's nothing. Though the expression "outside of reality" is misleading as well. Maybe, "beyond" reality or transcends reality or exists in such a way that when the universe ceases to be, God still exists.
Always the same tedious hiding behind semantics. Whatever you call the realm beyond the universe where God exists, call it the nothing, call it the sum of unactualized possibilities call it the deist's asshole - it remains the place you made up where things can exist without having first been created. So your argument still remains:
>nothing can exist without being created
>except the thing I thought up that creates everything, that is allowed to break the unbreakable rule I made up and it exists and doesn't exist at the same time, it's also beyond the universe and the universe at the same time, I don't know, its hard to explain
Convincing as from the beginning
>>
>>19459040
Don't you think it's an HUGE issue that the arguments, and God for that matter
Needs this immateriality stuff, that we know nothing about? Else it doesn't make sense
immateriality of the gaps?

Almost like magic
>>
>>19458919

He cannot be explained or known. How could even claim that you know what God is ? To me it seems very arrogant and paradoxal that religions revere God, yet they claim with arrogance that they know what God is. Just because you can't explain God doesn't mean you can't talk about its existence. Here I'm trying to explain why believing God exists is the rational outcome of an analysis that isn't influenced by ideology, not what God is.

>>19458923

But even if we assume your hypothetical, this still doesn't answer why something like that happens instead of not happening. That's exactly my point, no matter what advances in science you make or how well you explain the processes of the universe, science cannot explain why these processes exist at all instead of not existing. It's a wall science will hit forever (which again, doesn't make science useless, just shows its limitations).

>>19458948

I did now. Something that appears on a macroscopic scale, but is not present in microscopic scale. So a property that is not the result of its parts. To which thing in my answer are you referring emergence ? Consciousness ? If you do, then I'm not sure what that's supposed to refute, point it out to me please.

>>19458965

Not even science holds an eternally past universe. At most they hold universe is cyclical which is not the same as saying an eternally past universe, but multiple universes existing in succesion.

But this is not relevant because my question goes much deeper and functions based on the affirmation that for something material to exist, there must be a reason since our minds just can't comprehend that something bound by laws is eternal. We can't comprehend how would this cycle be called eternal. How can something material be eternal ? How can something material have no beginning ? This is a difficulty the human mind can't trasncend.

>>19458981

I'm not deluding myself since I'm open to any opinion if it proves me wrong. You're the only one that tries to insult me even though I don't insult anyone. That says something about you. I actually used to be an atheist, then an agnostic. At some point I found out my position wasn't really agnosticism, but deism. So I've been in your place already, I'm not just blindly believing in God since birth.
>>
arguments for god from necessity have the same problems that the principle of sufficient reason has. variations of goldilocks arguments are refuted by variations of the anthropic principle. the best argument for god ive seen is the argument from divine coincidences
>>
>>19459025
There has yet to be created any scientific theory of the beginning of the universe that wouldn't fall apart by introducing a highly organised being/field/energy/anything at the very beginning. They all only make sense if ithe universe begins in a state of complete symmetry.
>>
>>19459082
Emergence is strong, good, takes care of bunch of stuff

Emergence solves the issues you have with complexity,
Emergence solves consciousness, works on physical reductionism (materialism)
Emergent space-time
>>
>>19459082
>Not even science holds an eternally past universe.
You'd be surprised.
You are not up-to-date on with Avant-garde science. This I can tell from your posts.
>>
>>19459082
>that for something material to exist, there must be a reason since our minds just can't comprehend that something bound by laws is eternal
So you invent God to make sense of something you cannot understand, don't you see?
>>
>>19459082
>How can something material be eternal ?
How can something immaterial be eternal ?
>>
>>19459082
>I'm open to any opinion if it proves me wrong
Oh.. All that unfalsifiable stuff, prove it wrong?
I think your opinion may have to stay as it is.
>>
>>19459002
1/1
I don't claim to understand quantum mechanics. I even pointed it out in my post. I was only trying to pre-emptively answer a possible objection to my statement that something cannot come from nothing. But me lacking quantum mechanics knowledge is not relevant for the subject at hand because the question of why something happens / exists instead of not happening / existing still can't be answered.

I'm getting tired of repeating the same things. Keep in mind I talk to several people at once and I'm only one person.

>>19459014

Of course, the human mind is limited, I've already so in another post. I'm only saying that the human mind makes sense of reality by perceiving it as existing in space and time and by working with some inherent assumptions (principle of non contradiction, identity, the cause-effect relation). That's just how our mind works in order to be able to function. That doesn't mean the mind isn't limited, it is of course and I've said so several times that God is the conclusion we rationally reach given our limitations. Maybe if we weren't so limited we could explain reality in any other way, but as we are currently, we have to do the best with what we have.

I also didn't deny science doesn't give results or its importance. I only denied it can answer a question that goes beyond the possibility of science.

>>19459043

Bro just follow my comments, I can't bother typing the same thing over and over when I talk to several people. Do you realise I type much more than what people reply to me and I do it to several people at once ? Get a grip. Look through the posts instead of waiting to be spoon-fed.

When did I say reality cannot be unmade ? I'm putting into question when reality began, not if it's possible to end since the beginning is more important for our intents and purposes.

>>19459080

I don't hide behind anything. I'm giving extensive answers to several people, what am I trying to hide ? You think I stand to gain something by talking with randoms on the internet and convincing them of what I say ? I only present what I believe in cause maybe someone points out something that I didn't see before.

I already told you everything is an assumption or theory. But you're focusing on the wrong aspect. You assume I picked this belief arbitrarily. I told you and I tell you again that I reached this set of beliefs by trying to rationally answer "why does something exist instead of not existing ?". Taking things step by step, I was constrained to reach the conclusion that something unexplainable is the cause of it all.

You can reach this conclusion by being braindead and believing blindly, or you can reach this conclusion like me, through eliminating the plausibility of other alternatives.

You put me in the first category. The fact that I can't explain what God is or where he exists or what kind of existence it has is not relevant, this is secondary discussion since my point is only that something like God exists.
>>
>>19459124
All I am trying to do is make you understand that the question "why does everything exist instead of not exist" is not answered by "because something else exists that makes it happen". It doesn't answer the question, it just pushes it further away - now you'd have to explain why that thing exists instead of non existing. The rational way to see it would be to accept not to have an answer.
>>
>>19459079
The "philosopher's God" is the one from theism, shared with most of the Western religions like Christianity, those philosophers like Plato, Aristotle, Kant and Leibniz were theists, not deists like Paine or Washington; also, most modern Christians believe in this God because modern Christians don't read the Old Testament, they just read the Gospel so they believe in the "Philosopher's God" and Jesus, and consider Jesus to be God too. Sounds weird but that's how modern Christianity actually is.

Anyways, from that pic I know Heisenberg, Kelvin, Galileo, Pasteur, Kepler, Planck and Newton were actual Christians, so not an argument.
>>
>>19459124
I use uncreated in the sense of - that is was never created,
something that has existed forever, eternal, would be an example of something uncreated

It's not an idiosyncrasy, you see it used like this from time to time in these debates
>>
>>19459144
>now you'd have to explain why that thing exists instead of non existing.
Dude, he did in another post.
Can't you read?
(I am being facetious)
>>
>>19459109
>How can something immaterial be eternal ?
It can't be destructed, it can't die.
>>
>>19459081

2/2

It might be. I can't be certain of anything when I try to find out what God is. I'm only fairly certain (so not 100%, of course) that something to the likes of God exists, I'm absolutely uncertain of anything else like what He is, etc. Of course immateriality as a condition is problematic since proving something is immaterial is impossible because you can't observe the immaterial. It's like pointing to nothing and saying "see ? it's there". But if we apply it to God, then only by definition I believe it is possible. We're talking about something that should be superior to everything else or self-sufficient in a strict sense.

>>19459094

Again, I'm repeating what I said several times already: ok, we accept emergence. Universe emerged. Why does this emergence happen instead of not happening ? I cannot stress the importance of this question. No matter what law, principle, etc you use, if you bind it to the material then you also have to explain why this process HAPPENS instead of not happening.

>>19459099

The last article I've read was 1 or 2 months ago and it was about disproving the big bang theory in favor of an explanation of the universe being the result of quantum fluctuations on a large scale. Did the science advance that much in 2 months ? Again this is a secondary discussion.

Ok, we agree the universe is eternal. Why does it exist instead of not existing ? Existing requires more "Effort" than not existing.

>>19459105

I don't invent anything, I reach the conclusion that something I can't comprehend might be the cause of reality. Most people refer to this something as "God", but they understand it as religious God. I don't. For me this "God" can be virtually everything, I don't limit it to any characteristics besides "immaterial" since it wouldn't make sense for God to be material since it would be bound to certain laws (and then that would mean that there's a law constraining God, which gives us another question: what created the law that constraints even God ?).

>>19459109

This is a tautological question. I mean if something is immaterial, then it cannot perish since what usually the attribute "eternal" makes sense primarily when we talk about things existing for a limited amount of time. If something is immaterial, The immaterial is eternal by virtue of its non-existence. I guess eternity just can't apply to material things, but this is a quick thought, yet the concept of eternity exists to explain something we can't explain. The concept "eternity" just encapsulates something that can't be calculated for humans. Humans can't really demonstrate something is eternal since humans can't observe eternity for obvious reasons.

>>19459120

Well, if it's unfalsifiable, then you have to accet it as plausible. I've said several times that I don't think what I say is certainty, just the most plausible theory.
>>
>>19459170
So our material universe will disappear one day? Simply because it's material
And I don't mean drastically change, rip apart or crunch, but stop being
no longer exist

What you even mean by immaterial, btw?
Everything I know of that exists, is material.
If you by immaterial mean non-existing, I agree,
But it seems like a truism to claim that things that don't exist, will never stop existing.
>>
>>19459144

Yes, the rational way is to say we don't have an answer. Which is why I say that what I hold is a THEORY, not certainty (I can't bold words so I have to use caps, so don't take it as screaming or getting mad).

I only believe that what I believe is the most plausible result because the science is inherently limited to not being able to answer questions such as "why does everything exist instead of not exist ?".

>>19459160

Well, I understood it differently when you applied to reality since the word looks like a verb more than an adjective.
>>
>>19459183
>Why does this emergence happen instead of not happening ? I cannot stress the importance of this question. No matter what law, principle, etc you use, if you bind it to the material then you also have to explain why this process HAPPENS instead of not happening.
Still not entirely clear of why simply flagging something with the (invented) property of immateriality makes it okay for it to require no such explanation
What does immateriality entail, by what mechanism does it solve everything so easily?
>>
>>19459183
>The last article
Singular articles are not how you go about determining what's going on in science
You can find articles for anything, science is not 1 guy

I like surveys
>>
>>19459203
>Nothing can exist without being created
>so it must have been created by something that hasn't been created
This isn't plausible.
>>
>>19459183
>Ok, we agree the universe is eternal. Why does it exist instead of not existing ?
By whatever reason God exist, instead on not exist.
Christians calls it necessity. It literally just is so, the fact of the matter.

>Existing requires more "Effort" than not existing.
According to whom?
>>
>>19457501
>>19457504
>>19457509
>And this god we call the god of Israel and of circumcision.
Why don't they ever actually try to prove the claim that they're assuming they've proven? No one gives a shit about muh pure act of actuality.
>>
>>19459082
>But even if we assume your hypothetical, this still doesn't answer why something like that happens instead of not happening. That's exactly my point, no matter what advances in science you make or how well you explain the processes of the universe, science cannot explain why these processes exist at all instead of not existing. It's a wall science will hit forever (which again, doesn't make science useless, just shows its limitations).
This may be hair-splitting, but it's possible to *explain* (provisionally and hypothetically); just not to prove, or to disprove the notion that something else, or nothing, might have happened instead. This is not really a problem in my view: it smacks of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems territory: as a brief extrapolation, it's impossible to have a complete theory of our universe from inside our universe.
None of this suggests a God (prime mover, whatever), though, and while that too is a possibility, it's fundamentally unprovable for basically the same reasons. Therefore the conclusion is 'don't know; can't know', except in conditions where claims are made about God's actions or features or whatever, which must either be metaphorical for storytelling purposes or be false.
>>
>>19459207

I don't think it doesn't require an explanation. I only believe it's impossible to give one. I would like to know as much as anyone else, but since we don't even know why reality exists, how can I hope to know what God is with certainty ?

The whole immaterial attribute of God is a secondary discussion really. I talk about the immateriality of God because it seems necessary in order for God to be unhindered or unbound by any laws and so to cause reality / the universe.

I can only tell you what immateriality is by definition. Not having matter / form. Absence of physicality.

>>19459210

Sure. Then you can present your avant-garde scientific arguments if you think they are better qualified to explain why reality exists eternally without any beginning. I already sense that it's about cyclical existence not one continous existence.

>>19459214

It is plausible since something can't appear out of nothing.

>>19459216

Keep in mind that I say God is not material, while the universe is material. Anything that's material is affected by some laws or processes. We can observe that everything material is born and dies at some point then transforms into something else (like the human body decaying and becoming part of the soil). I guess I'm talking about enthropy here. Everything has a tendency towards enthropy or disorder. Everything depends upon certain conditions to exist in a certain way (as animal, human, rock, lightning, planet, whatever) and that's because these things are material.

God, by comparison, if we assume he's immaterial, then he doesn't need to have a beginning because when we usually talk about beginning and ends, we refer to material things, not immaterial ones (it would be illogical to say something immaterial has a beginning).

>>19459260

I agree. I said that we can't prove or say with certainty that God exists. I only said it's what seems the most plausible result given how science will forever be incapable of explaining why reality exists.

> it's impossible to have a complete theory of our universe from inside our universe.

This is my point as well. We can't know how reality comes to be or "why" it exists because we don't have an outside perspective. An a priori perspective, a perspective of "before" reality. Science is limited because it analyses only from inside the system, but to explain why the system exists at all, you have to go beyond the system, which leads me to propose that something like God might exist. Even if we propose that laws which cause the system exist outside the system, we still have to ask why these laws exist. It's going to be an infinite regression of why something exists instead of not existing. The only way this chain stops is to suppose something that is not bound by any cause exists.

Even if you conceive a closed circular system (meaning eternal cyclical universe), then you can't explain why it happens at all or why it exists. So the most plausible explanation is an unbound force.
>>
>>19459194
>So our material universe will disappear one day? Simply because it's material
>And I don't mean drastically change, rip apart or crunch, but stop being
no longer exist
Who knows, probably.

>What you even mean by immaterial, btw?
>If you by immaterial mean non-existing
Immaterialin this context means having no physical or material reality but this doesn't mean these things don't exist like everything else. Things like the soul or the consciousness are immaterial but they are fucking real, they aren't just concepts, and you can't say they aren't real because that is denying something you can perfectly perceive and everybody can perceived like the consciousness, or something we use everyday that control the body that it's the soul.

>But it seems like a truism to claim that things that don't exist, will never stop existing.
One example of something that is immaterial, exists and will never stop existing is the soul. The soul is that, when present in a body, makes it living. It is real?, obviously yes, you are alive the soul exists; and the soul always brings life, then it must not die, and is necessarily "imperishable". As the body is mortal and is subject to physical death, the soul must be its indestructible opposite, so it can bring life. The invisible, immortal, and incorporeal things are different from visible, mortal, and corporeal things. Our soul is of the former, while our body is of the latter, so when our bodies die and decay, our soul will continue to live. Will never stop existing.
>>
>>19459307

2/2 >>19459260

Did a quick search and seems like Godel follows Leibniz's line of thought, which I do as well. So I guess it's surprising that I find myself agreeing with Godel.
>>
>>19459313

it's not surprising*
>>
>>19459307
>>19459214 (You) #
>It is plausible since something can't appear out of nothing
Wrong, God can appear out of nothing according to you.
>>
>>19459367
Not him, but how is something not subject to the time dimension supposed to emerge? That requires change, which can't occur if time is not involved.
>>
>>19457501
Wait, didn’t Kant refute him like hundreds of years ago?
>>
why is the conclusion always that this first thing is some immensely powerful all knowing entity? Some sort of being that set in motion a universe , to watch and test it's inhabitants. What If this God, this Godly "thing" which began a movement, was incredibly basic, simply a movement itself, that's been gathering momentum since it "became" and has been developing for an eternity into something bigger and bigger until it eventually becomes able to develop a thing called consciousness, and make conscious beings throughout itself to better understand itself, nature and reality. it's been said that we are reality experiencing itself, perhaps god is just as unsure as to why everything began too, why it is what it is. Wouldn't an entity of seemingly no end and beginning question itself and it's circumstance? The conclusion should not be, (though it could be, who knows?) that this is a god with a plan, and that one should should therefore follow Christianity or religion. It could instead be that the universe, everythingness, is just experiencing itself, questioning itself, experimenting, learning what is good, what is evil, what is intelligence what is love etc etc and that with our consciousnesses we should do the same, question and experience reality, not blindly follow doctrines. Perhaps To follow your own path in this respect is closer to a truth and closer to the Godness in everything and its pursuit of experience.
>>
>>19459312
>Who knows, probably.
Either immateriality is the prerequisite of eternality or it isn't

But if you think probably everything matrial can suddenly "poof" out of existence
Why is it that the opposite is so implausible? (for it to poof into existence)

these seem pretty symmetrical
>>
>>19459312
>you can't say they aren't real because that is denying something you can perfectly perceive and everybody can perceived like the consciousness
No, but I can say they are physical.
Which shouldn't be hard to accept, as it's a feature shared with EVERYTHING else that I believe to exist.

You are the one that has invented this "immaterial" thing, and you can't even say what it is. Except by saying what it's not, that it is not physical. Bravo.
>>
>>19457501
Subject and object are human interpretations of physics. That doesn't mean that physics is human.

Example of this:
I eat an apple.
The apple is overcome and subsumed by me, like one single-celled organism absorbing another.
The tiger eats me.
This is the same event, more or less, yet Aquinas looks at this logic and assumes that human intelligence and consciousness is bound up in it. I don't lose my mind when I'm eaten by a tiger and a tiger wouldn't be considered some kind of victor in a duel or even a murderer for eating me. Aquinas is attributing human motive to the entire chain of causality, but we can see there is no such chain in what we can observe. Why would it become human in some out-of-sight part of the chain?

Where is the logic in making a distinction between subject and object? From an ecological standpoint, with these eating examples, you just witnessed something similar to a chemical reaction. Do you attribute dominance or victory or power to chemicals percolating in a vat? Does acetic acid win the war against sodium bicarbonate? Does cold conquer heat in a freezer? Does light defeat darkness; if so, how is it that there is no darkness that can overcome light? It's as though there's no connection between any of these events at all, except the mythology we write for them.
>>
>>19459367

I never said God appears out of something. I said he's eternal since he's immaterial and as >>19459379 says, not subject to time.
>>
>>19459312
>One example of something that is immaterial, exists and will never stop existing is the soul.
How do you know the soul exist? Have you seen one?
Of course not. (That was a joke)

If your belief in the soul was a false belief, that you were wrong, how could you know?
Is this belief unfalsifiable, and asserted for no good reason as well? (I see a pattern)

You say the soul is immaterial, how is it that is interacts causally with the martial, like our bodies.
that makes it sound like it's physical. You can't have your cake and eat it
>>
>>19459422
Yes, viewing events like this is retarded. It's compatible with any set of observations. It will literally never be wrong, no matter what you see.
In the case of the acorn:

Acorn's purpose is to grow into an oak tree -> there must be an intelligence guiding this process
Acorn's purpose is to be squirrel food -> there must be an intelligence guiding this process
Acorn's purpose is to be worm food and decompose -> there must be an intelligence guiding this process
>>
>>19459428
What work is immateriality actually doing here?
Sounds a lot like a feature you've just tacked on to disqualify the universe.

Notice that a bunch of these arguments, would work equally well, if you substituted the word "immateriality" with "magic".
>>
>>19459454

Immateriality isn't supposed to do anything special. It's just the absence of bonds to material laws.

Yeah, you can substitute a lot of words in a lot of things and they still work, that's irrelevant and not an argument in itself.
>>
>>19459578

I mean that's the primary characteristic I refer to when talking about immateriality and God. I know it looks arbitrary, but it's just what God should be with necessity (immaterial), otherwise we'd fall in contradiction: if God is not immaterial then that means he's subject to material laws. If he's subject to material laws then he can't create material laws since he himself is already bound by these laws we say he created. See ?
>>
>>19459581
So it's a rule breaking property, that is invented to make an explanation not fall into the same problems it's trying to explain
That would seem a lot less ad hoc, if I had reasons to believe there was such a property

Okay, to be fair. I'm sure you got a bunch of reasons. It's not like theist just believe in the immaterial just to get Aquinas' arguments off the ground.
It's just that I think they all fail.
So the argument remains unpersuasive, when core components got such a dubious ontological status.
>>
>>19459618

I mean I don't argue in defense of Aquinas. In fact I don't even know much about him, but I know that he uses aristotelic cosmology with which I don't agree. Aristotelic cosmology has been proven wrong already by heliocentric models, but maybe the idea of a "prime mover" isn't too far from what I propose. Aristotle is fairly sure of what this prime mover might be, but I'm not. I only propose that it seems reasonable to believe it exists.

As for immateriality being a rule breaking property, I wouldn't call immateriality as being "something". In fact, it's the absence of something concrete. It's like trying to explain nothingness I guess. Would a consciousness that has no manifestation whatsoever break the "nothingness" ? I mean if we imagine nothingness (pitch black or whatever) and we also imagine there's a consciousness there but it has absolutely no manifestation, is that state of nothingness ceasing to be nothing or do we understand nothing only in reference to the material ?

Beucase if we accept consciousness existing in nothingness doesn't break the status of "nothingness" because of immateriality, then God can exist in nothingness. It would be like our consciousness, but much more encompassing and independent of any factors for its existence.

People will always consider this kind of ideas dubious since people are also taught to pursue empirical proof for everything. It's one of the shortcomings of our times: we believe that if science doesn't explain something, then it's not plausible.
>>
>>19459690
>Aristotelic cosmology has been proven wrong already by heliocentric models, but maybe the idea of a "prime mover" isn't too far from what I propose. Aristotle is fairly sure of what this prime mover might be, but I'm not. I only propose that it seems reasonable to believe it exists.

"It's reasonable to believe a prime mover existed" is a pretty far way away from proving God exists.

1. That it can explain something is not proof.
2. It may be that the universe is eternal and we don't need a prime mover at all.
3. Aristotle's prime mover did not interact with the universe at all but merely contemplated itself. There is no reason to believe that a prime mover has any of the properties of an orthodox Christian God.
>>
>>19459801

Man, I said it several times already. I'm not trying to *prove* that God exists with certainty. I'm only explaining my perspective in which God is the rational / logical conclusion to explain why reality exists since science cannot and will never be able to (for reasons that I explained already in the chain of answers to other anons).

Aristotle's prime mover is similar to claiming that something akin to God created the universe. In fact, you could say Aristotle was a deist. Probably the first one.

The eternity of the universe - I answered this one too. Even if the universe is eternal, we still have the question: why does the universe exist instead of not existing ? The fact that is eternal or not is a secondary discussion.

I didn't say Aristotle's prime mover is similar to the orthodox christian god. If you had actually bothered to read a bit of my other posts, you'd have seen that by God I don't mean the christian God or any religious one, but that "force" or entity or whatever which causes reality.
>>
>>19459813
>I'm only explaining my perspective in which God is the rational / logical conclusion to explain why reality exists
I just pointed out why that is false.

1. It is not clear that it is logical to take a something as true because of its explanatory value without any proof
2. Reality may have always existed and need no creator
3. A creator is not necessarily God

> why does the universe exist instead of not existing ?
Positing a creator here just moves the problem one step back. Why did a creator exist?
>>
>>19459856
Dude just wants to go in circles. Like I said here >>19458923 and >>19459260, the logical conclusion about a creator and why stuff exists is 'don't know; can't know'. If created, infinite regression; if always existing, why something instead of nothing, and a whole lot more whys impervious to investigation: why not more matter than we have now, etc. Fundamentally impossible to prove, and that's that.
>>
>>19459927
>the logical conclusion about a creator and why stuff exists is 'don't know; can't know'.
So what does positing a creator solve?
>>
>>19459927

Yes, you can't prove it, not sure why that's a deal breaker for you. Why is it a deal breaker for you that you can't adopt an arrogant stance and pretend you know what God is and what he can do ?
>>
>>19459408
>No, but I can say they are physical.
They aren't and you can't, just look at the quotes I passed from Heisenberg and Schrödinger, the consciousness was tried to be brought to atomic rank and it did not appear either, the soul was not found anywhere in the body but at the same time it is known that this is what keeps it alive.

>You are the one that has invented this "immaterial" thing
I did not invent the concept of immateriality, I was already in physics and philosophy.
>and you can't even say what it is. Except by saying what it's not, that it is not physical.
I did say that Immaterial in this context means having no physical or material reality, yet these things exist and are real, personal to us
>>
File: 9.png (98 KB, 920x608)
98 KB
98 KB PNG
>>19457950
Yes.
>>
File: Filosofia Concreta.png (152 KB, 393x600)
152 KB
152 KB PNG
>>19457501
Nope, this is. It's a shame you're unlikely to know portuguese to read this.
It's like Wittgenstein's Tratactus but actually good.
>>
Bruh, like who cares. Suppose a creator exists, what are the implications of that unless he's the Christian God
>>19460680
Now prove uniqueness.
>>
File: c.jpg (179 KB, 1044x1360)
179 KB
179 KB JPG
>>19460713
This one is quite palatable. Not as deep as some of the other works in apologetics though.
>>
There is more evidence and logical proofs to support belief in the existence of God, than there is to support atheism.
>>
>>19459942
Positing a creator answers the questions 'why is there something instead of nothing in *our* universe,' and 'does the universe have a beginning?' In other words, there is a higher-order dimension from which our conditions were agentically created at time t. Of course that raises other questions; but that's a long digression.
>>19460228
>Why is it a deal breaker for you that you can't adopt an arrogant stance and pretend you know what God is and what he can do?
Ah, so you're just a fool who assumes facts about my thinking not in evidence, and is careless with his words besides.
The point is that you cannot correctly say
>I'm only explaining my perspective in which God is the rational / logical conclusion
note the smuggled-in premise:
>THE rational/logical conclusion
God cannot be *THE* rational conclusion; God (as prime mover) is A POSSIBLE rational conclusion, and this has been amply proven.
>>
>>19457501
The strongest argument in favor of the existence of God is to observe those who most vehemently oppose Him. His enemies exalt vice, they abhor virtue, they demonstrate His necessity. He must exist because without Him the universe is a corpse.
>>
>>19460750
No duh atheism is a null hypothesis. Learn yourself some logic little man
>>
>But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover

Didn't the inventors of infinite limits refute this? You can have an infinite set of finite-sized intervals between A and B without A and B being an infinite distance apart
>>
>>19459927
>Dude just wants to go in circles
Cuz your argument is bad, dohoy!
But you don't own up to this
>>
>>19460761
>Positing a creator answers the questions 'why is there something instead of nothing in *our* universe,' and 'does the universe have a beginning?'
No it doesn't. You said
>the logical conclusion about a creator and why stuff exists is 'don't know; can't know'.
So why posit a creator? It doesn't improve our understanding of anything.
>>
>>19460653
>just look at the quotes I passed from Heisenberg and Schrödinger
Okay dude, this intellectually weak. You must realize that.
If I throw some quotes out from scientists that disagrees, do they cancel each other out?

It's ridiculous to believe these arguments (there was arguments?) succeed
Do you think non-dualist just goes about there lives in extreme denial, going "lalalallal!" if you show them the picture of Schrödinger?
Extremely conceited.

>Immaterial in this context means having no physical or material reality, yet these things exist and are real
How do you know?
- > How would you know if you were wrong? (This is an important question)
The picture of Schrödinger proves it is real?
I think we are done here. You are full of shit.
>>
>>19460883
Yes, Infinite regression is not very satisfactory, but it's not an logical impossibility.
You would need to adopt a very weird philosophy of time.
Like, entirely ad hoc, invented just to make these arguments work. William Lane Craig does this.
The point of this is to make an eternal past universe logically impossible.

I think the fact that virtually nobody in science or philosophy shares it, goes to show the motivation for inventing it.
>>
Can any seasoned Christian tell me what the doctrine is on where evil and suffering on Earth stem from?
I'm drawn to the idea that the suffering on this Earth is due to the fall of Man from Heaven and the cursed state of this condition, but the few texts I've read online on this indicate that this suffering is designed by God intentionally, and thus is not a suffering caused by the departure from God.
>>
>>19457501
This thread make the atheists seethe so much that they make like 4 different threads dissing Jesus and posting shit from the New Atheism movement.

Atheism isn't even a good thing for society, you just need to look at Mao China or Stalin URSS.
>>
>>19461285
>How do you know?
If you are aware of internal and external existence then consciousness is something real. If you deny you are aware of internal and external existence then that's a fucking lie and you are the one who is full of shit. If you are alive then the soul also exists you dumbfuck.

>How would you know if you were wrong?
The only way I can be wrong is basically not existing, not having consciousness or life, which is not true.
>>
>>19461342
Congratulations you discovered the Problem of Evil.

There is no satisfactory answers if you're being intellectually honest and it is the killshot argument against any conception of the contemporary Christian god.
>>
>>19457730
>1.
>>It is certain
>>evident to our senses
>Presupposes God.
Presupposes God.

2.
>>world of sense
>>efficient cause
>Presupposes God.
Presupposes God.

3.
>>We find in nature things
>>that are possible to be and not to be
>Presupposes God. Also presupposes either potentia in God's actions or an external second power which is pure potentia and God eternally acts on it.
Presupposes God. Also presupposes that God grounds actuality.


4.
>>some more and some less good, true, noble
>Presupposes God.
Presupposes God.
>>different things
>Also presupposes the Holy Trinity. If multiplicity exists there is real multiplicity in God. Otherwise multicity has no basis in reality and is just imaginary.
Also presupposes God, the problem of the one and the many.

5.
>>act for an end
>Telos presupposes God, namely a God who can act in different ways and chooses to actualize certain potentia and not others.
Presupposes God.
>>
>>19461342
Agustine.
>>
>>19460883
>mathematicians mental delusions disprove God
by saying that infinite limits was "invented" you are accepting that it has no real effect on the world.
>>
>>19461419
Is this some weird presuppositionalism?

You forgot to write why this cannot ever be explained on materialism, while this new unknown thing - immaterial stuff, is warranted AND explains it
I can make up an infinite amount of imagined explanations as well.

>If you are alive then the soul also exists
Do you think this argument succeeds?
Alive = Soul
(Also the soul got all these kind of never before seen properties.

IT'S LIKE TALKING TO A CHILD
>>
>>19461514
by saying that Aquinas' arguments was "invented" you are accepting that it has no real effect on the world.

fucking tard.
>>
>>19461538
Categories necessitate a divine intellect, presupposing God.
>>
>>19461574
Wow, I see.
That is the strongest argument for God.
Aquinas knocked off his peg.
>>
>>19461538
>You forgot to write why this cannot ever be explained on materialism
It cannot be explained in materialism because materialism is incorrect, idealism is the way to go

>Alive = Soul
Yes?. That's the function of the soul, to keep the whole thing alive, think of your body as belonging to a videogame and the soul controlling it and the brain as the control the soul use.
>>
>>19461514

You don't have to accept the 'physical reality' of limits at infinity. They just show that a key assumption of Aquinas needs elaboration. WHY is it the case you can't have an infinite sequence of things in motion where one puts the other into motion but also depends on something else for its motion.
>>
>>19461671
I'm literally down to just one word:
Why?

You assert all these weird things, for no reason, that explains fuckall, they are just invented
>>
>>19461709
He argues exactly that. You CAN have an infinite regress, but there is still the need to have something "start" it, which is why Aristotle, even though he thought the universe was infinitely old, made the argument that something had to start it. Aquinas is arguing that that something is called God.
>>
If you guys had read Feser you wouldn't even try to answer these questions.
You would just say some nonsense about "pure actuality"
So glad you guys have not read Feser.
>>
>>19461572
I never said he invented them. He reasoned them out. There is a difference.
>>
>>19461744
Sounds like you got a big ol' contradiction
>>
>>19461749
Its not a contradiction since the "start" is outside time and anything finite or infinite has to be IN time. Low iq
>>
>>19461748
What do you think mathematicians do?
>>
>>19461774
delude themselves into thinking that numbers are real and not mere representations of reality.
>>
>>19461756
How would anything outside time have causal power?
>>
>>19461792
What do you think logic is?
Or whatever method Aquinas use to reason.
Does it shape reality, instead of describing it?
>>
>>19461803
Of course it doesnt shape reality, but ask any mathematician if a circle is real. Watch the complete delusion.
>>
>>19461756
How can you "move", if there is no time?
why does things not remain changeless?
plot-hole
>>
>>19461817
So where's the difference between "math" and "reasoning/logic" exactly?
>>
>>19461729
>You assert all these weird things, for no reason, that explains fuckall, they are just invented
These things are not invented, they were discovered through reason. Everything I'm talking about is completely real and based on our reality. I am telling you because it is also part of the metaphysics of Plato and Aristotle which is the one used by Aquinas, I just thought it was interesting to talk to you about the soul.
>>
>>19461803
Aquinas describe reality, remember he is a Aristotelian he shared Aristotle logic and his philosophy as a whole
>>
>>19461867
Are you delusional?
Do you think being an "Aristotelian" gives you some kind of superpower that makes your reasoning describe reality without fail?
>>
File: 1635390654658.png (1.32 MB, 1784x1349)
1.32 MB
1.32 MB PNG
>>19457501
>this
>>
>>19461853
Just to make sure we are on the same page.
When I say invented, I don't mean that you personally is making this stuff up, or the arguments.
I realize that there is a longstanding tradition for these things.

I mean that I find the arguments for them unpersuasive, and is of the opinion that they probably do not exist.
So you asserting that "They do exist!", and backing that with arguments I disagree with. They remain in the same category as invented stories, as far I know.
>>
>>19461853
>discovered through reason.
I can discover the phlogiston theory through reason.
That does not make it true that flammable things contains the element of fire.
>>
>>19461890
>Do you think being an "Aristotelian" gives you some kind of superpower that makes your reasoning describe reality without fail?
If you follow Aristotle's system of logic then yes, you can, what is most brilliant in Aristotle is that he is doing a sort of logico-phenomenology of empirical natural sciences, he wades into any given domain (biology, logic, the nature of matter and even of physical "movement"), and he thinks through and boils down the entities and relations in that domain until he can posit a certain logical "core" set of relationships and entities, Aquinas does not change anything to Aristotle and he adapts completely to his philosophy that is why he is so good.

The best thing is that Aristotle's logic has never been disproved, and today even in computer science we use Aristotelian logic.
>>
>>19461972
So that's a "Yes" to the delusional part?
>>
>>19461972
>The best thing is that Aristotle's logic has never been disproved, and today even in computer science we use Aristotelian logic.

No this isn't correct, the golden mountain syllogism is invalid from a Boolean standpoint:

1. All golden mountains are golden
2. All golden mountains are mountains
3. Some mountains are golden

because 1 and 2 would be considered true but 3 is false.
CS using Boolean logic with Boolean variables and connectives, not syllogistic logic. You might be thinking of object-oriented programming which uses inheritable categories .
>>
>>19458533
So Yahweh as described in the Old Testament isn’t god
>>
>>19461345
The more successful a society gets, the more secular it becomes. Religion thrives off hardships
>>
>>19457501
Several issues prior to this, but this specifically:
>But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover
Is unfounded.
>>
>>19462430
Christ is
>>
>>19461419
Even if you define consciousness as immaterial, it doesn’t mean it can exist independently of material
>>
>>19462446
>The more successful a society gets, the more secular it becomes.
>What's the Roman Empire
>>
>>19462458
He needed to die on a cross to wash away the sins of the world and didn’t know the day of the second coming. Not omnipotent or omniscient, so not god
>>
>>19462466
In a modern context, you can argue that’s the result of degeneracy tho
>>
>>19458058
>Now with God proven I'm forced to believe, faith is worthless
Holy shit, I share this board with people as retarded as this? Getting the fuck out.
>>
>>19458201
>Aquinas is a cringe heretic
How?
>>
>>19458515
>Immaterial mind, what's that? Can such a thing possibly exist?
Wait, isn't mind, by defition, immaterial?
>>
>>19462477
He was God, but finite.

>Not omnipotent or omniscient
This is the infinite God.

God is both finite and infinite, the infinite God create a rock that he cannot lift,the finite. The finite can lift himself because he is also God. God is omnipotent.
>>
>>19457581
>STA was arguing for a specific God, was he not?
He wasn't, he states that the 5 ways are exclusively for prooving God in a general matter.
>>
>>19462523
NTA, but maybe a better way to word it is if a mind independent of matter can exist
>>
>>19462523
Can be entirely reduced to the physical. Brain, atoms, etc.
Basically not granting soul-stuff being necessary for a mind.
>>
>>19462652
>doesn't know the difference between mind and brain
>invoke atomism without knowing atoms confirm that matter isn't real
>>
>>19463152
>doesn't know the difference between mind and brain
You tell me. How you know this?
>invoke atomism without knowing atoms confirm that matter isn't real
matter isn't real?
words have meaning you know
In what sense, is matter not real?
>>
>>19457501
Gay



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.