/lit/ - Literature

>>21363977
>8. If there is a first cause, then God exists.

Let’s turn to premise (8). Here is one hypothesis which would seem to falsify (8):

>The Big Bang The first event in the history of the universe was an explosion of an extremely dense collection of particles, with every particle moving apart from every other particle. This event had no cause - in particular, no intelligent being set it into motion - and, further, every subsequent event has been an effect of this event.

This would appear to be a description of a world in which there is a first cause, but God does not exist. So it looks as though, if we are to believe (8), we must have some reason for rejecting the above hypothesis. Might one defend (8) by saying that this hypothesis is impossible, on the grounds that there can’t be an uncaused cause, like the explosion of particles described?

Instead, it seems Aquinas has to argue that nothing like the Big Bang could genuinely be a first cause. Things like the Big Bang have to have a cause; but things like God don’t. And that is, in a way, exactly what Aquinas tried to do (though of course he did not have the Big Bang in mind). He tried to argue that something which was an uncaused cause would have to have other properties, which God has, but the Big Bang does not. And that is, in a way, exactly what Aquinas tried to do (though of course he did not have the Big Bang in mind). He tried to argue that something which was an uncaused cause would have to have other properties, which God has, but the Big Bang does not. Rather than pursue Aquinas’ thought on this further, let’s consider one way of developing the argument which was prominent in a school of Islamic thought which predates Aquinas. On this view, everything which begins to exist at some time must have a cause. Because the universe — including the Big Bang — has a beginning in time, the universe as a whole — again, including the Big Bang — must have a cause. So the Big Bang can’t be the first cause — and indeed nothing in the universe can be. If one accepts this extra premise, and one accepts the assumption that the universe came to exist at some time, then it follows that the universe was caused to exist by something outside the universe.

>>21018634
>Most “good” people would do horrible things if given the right circumstances, the only reason we even have semi moral people is because society makes it possible to survive morally. Take away society and your left with humans who would happily bash my head in if it meant another meal.
The fallacy you're making here is supposing that there are "good people" and "bad people" when really there are just people who can choose to act good or bad at any given time. Tendencies only exist as a crutch for your animal brain to ascribe predictability to objects over time in order to be able to survive. In reality only the present exists and the kindest and most moral man can at any time if he so wishes choose to blow up a school bus full of children for absolutely no reason. What you're doing is sneaking in a covert fatalism to the narrative in order to justify your own immorality.
>I like my friends, I like my family. But do I think that they would kill me over a burrito if they were on the brink of starvation? Yes.
I don't doubt that (although I do pity you if this is the case). But don't pretend that this proves anything about human potential. Sure there is a case to be made that the average person is probably like that. But by claiming that that has any bearing on what a human is capable of you are coping and justifying your own evil. In truth, you have no idea the heights men can and have reached, and how could you when you're surrounded by ugliness and your mind is embedded in this gutter of a world that we have created.