[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 141 KB, 800x675, aquinas.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14311182 No.14311182 [Reply] [Original]

The problem with all of his proofs for God's existence in his work the Summa is that he failed to demonstrate why the universe requires a first cause.

>> No.14311190

>>14311182
What the fuck I hate Aquinas now

>> No.14311199

>>14311182
that lookalike the picture of Ellon Musk smoking weed on john rogans podcast wtf

>> No.14311203

>>14311182
WTF BROS HE JUST REFUTED AQUINAS!?!?

>> No.14311207

>>14311190
>>14311199
>>14311203
Not an argument. Simply put, the premise of his arguments are undemonstrated. This is a gargantuan flaw in Thomism.

>> No.14311237

>>14311182
t. hasn't read aquinas
because all of his answers are just as retarded circular logic

>> No.14311262
File: 2.17 MB, 700x6826, 1573220696159.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14311262

>>14311182
its not about a first cause, its about sustaining in the here and now

>> No.14311268

>>14311262
Why does the universe need to be sustained in the way you think it does?

>> No.14311270

>>14311262
>motion means change
source?

>> No.14311277

I understand that no philosopher is ever refuted and progress (if there's such a thing in philosophy) it's not a linear battle of wits, but why the fuck is /lit/ fixated on Aquinas of all of them?

It's because of christfags trying to convert people? I that case hey should know that no one who's ever read the Summa became a christian because of it. Nobody becomes a faithful by virtue of reason. First you convert than you read the books.

If the Christian God and all the catholic Dogma could be explained and demonstrated by logic and reason there would be no need for Faith. I'm sure no Christian would ever willingly give up faith just for feeling superior on a chinese forum.

>>14311270
Aristotle

>> No.14311284

Thomas' proofs depend on the acceptance of various comtroversial metaphysical viewpoints, buf there is a particular issue with cosmological arguments that I don't often see discussed but is crucial. A being whose essence includes existence is not in any way self-explanatory, because if that was the case we wouldn't need a cosmological argument. Merely grasping the concept of God would suffice to explain why he exists, hence it would be an ontological proof, not a cosmological one. But of course even Aquinas conceded that merely grasping the concept of God is not enough to prove that he exists - which shows that even a being whose essence includes existence is not self-explanatory.

>> No.14311949

not op but why does the universe need to be sustained/ why does there need to be a first causer

>> No.14311960

He does actually why there must be a prime mover. Aristotle does too but that would require actually these guys. These threads are fucking annoying because they're nothing but hot takes from the most ill informed people on this board.

>> No.14312006

>>14311960
not op but explain why pls im curious

>> No.14312016

>>14311182
Ironic, he forgot about human nature...

>> No.14312020

>>14311277
Of course faith is necessary. Knowledge (of the most fundamental things) being out of our grasp is the human condition. So where can one honestly and coherently put their faith?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gsB4_ryJJeg

>> No.14312021

>>14312006
You're a fucking retard who can't even spell please. I don't care what you think.

>> No.14312053

>>14312020
Based comments section on youtube?

>> No.14312096

>>14312021
I'm legitimately asking so that I can understand his argument better. I'm not opposed to it in the first place. I just want to learn since you said you knew something that OP didn't. I find that you're needlessly rude, which perhaps reveals that you're a midwit who resorts to namecalling rather than intellectual discussion. I simply asked you to expand upon your previous claim.

>> No.14312117

>>14312096
I'm not your teacher. I'm not interested in people who won't read the text. I despise people like you.

>> No.14312134

>>14312117
I'm not here to argue anything without reading the original text. All I wanted was for you to explain your claim. Why participate in a discussion where you claim something but refuse to explain why you claimed it?

>> No.14312135

>>14312021
If typos and abbreviations invalidate a person in your view, you'd better not reread your last post

>> No.14312138

>>14311270
Artistotle probably

>> No.14312167

>>14312134
Do you just not believe me when I tell you that I do not care what you think? I don't care if you're genuinely seeking knowledge. If you read any of the the texts you would know that Aquinas does argue that there must be a unmoved mover or first cause. If you don't believe me then you can fuck off. I don't owe you anything.

>> No.14312183

>>14311182
He doesn't sneed to demonstrate jack shit, niggerwhore.

>> No.14312232

The argument from motion is concerned with hierarchical causality or levels of causation. Another way to think of it is as dealing causation in the "here and now" as opposed to a historical chain of causation. Aquinas illustrates what he's talking about using the example of a person holding a stick and using it to move a rock on the ground.

Everything that is in motion is moved by something else. Some things, like a rock, do not have the power to move itself. For a rock to move it must be moved by something else, like a stick which is itself being pushed by a hand because the stick doesn't have the power to move itself. The stick is an instrumental cause of the rocks movement because it is deriving its power of movement from the hand, and the hand is deriving its power of movement from the brain, and the brain deriving its movement from something else, a higher source.

The chain of movement must ultimately terminate with something that is itself unmoved by anything else because a series of instrumental causes can't go on indefinitely, and to say otherwise would be to suggest that an infinite series of sticks moving rocks which move more sticks that move more rocks could exist without any hands and brains becoming involved.

Now you know better and you can stop remaking this same thread over and over again.

>> No.14312235
File: 14 KB, 192x260, 1574639411375.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14312235

>>14311262
Are potentials existing entities or a category contrived from the concept of possibility? The argument from motion relies on the mutually reliant categories of potential and actual, but "potential ice" is water and "potential roses" are seeds. I see no reason to accept the category of potentials as a category of existing things so argument comes down to the idea that nothing can be brought into existence without an existing actor. This brings back the dilemmas Feser (arguably the most shilled thomist on the internet) claims Aquinas avoids. What, other than human experience, validates the claim that ex nihilo nihil fit? Without the mind-numbing talk of non-existent potentials, what of the 7 "interesting attributes" on slide 12 would hold up, forgetting my other objection?

Aquinas was a pseud nigger

>> No.14312263

>>14312235
It doesn't argue that potential is a category of existing things. Potentials exist virtually but not actually and that's precisely why it's called potential and not actual. To deny potential is to deny change, and good luck with that.

>> No.14312325

Doesn't quantum physics btfo him?

>> No.14312339

>>14312263
>To deny potential is to deny change
This needs to be argued for. You can't say that without arguing why you believe that.

>> No.14312377

>>14312263
Not really, you can explain change as the transition from one actual thing to another actual thing. There is no reason to postulate a whole new ontological realm of potential being and claim that change is the transition from one potential being to an actual one.

>> No.14312430

>>14312377
How a thing go from one actual thing to another actual thing if there was no potential for that actual thing to become the actual thing? Cutting out the terminology isn't doing away with the concept. You're only making the language less precise.

>>14312339
It really doesn't need to be argued, you just don't understand it. In order for something to become actual has to have the potential to become that actual. What is the objection to this?

>> No.14312431

>>14312232
You're applying the laws of our universe to the universe itself. It's retarded as fuck. You can't apply conditions within our known universe to outside of our known universe because that's an unproved assertion.

>> No.14312446

>>14312431
I don't know what this is supposed to mean.

>> No.14312470

>>14312446
Arguing that the universe needs a cause doesn't make sense because it relies on the unproved assertion that the universe follows the law of what is inside the universe. It's like saying tacos exist outside of the known universe. It's unproved.

>> No.14312482

>>14312431
Nigga what the hell are you even saying. Gravity isn't part of the universe because gravity doesn't work on itself or what? You're not making sense.

>> No.14312490

>>14312430
You are assuming that an actual thing is a potential thing actualiazed. This is the premise I reject. I am saying that I see no reason why it couldn't be the case that one actual thing just transforms to another. I can interpret talk about potentialities subjectively as what we can imagine that might happen in the future instead of a fully real ontological realm distinct to actuality. Are you familiar with empiricist accounts of modality?

>> No.14312491

>>14312470
You don't understand the argument because it's not concerned with a "first temporal cause" that goes back in time. Are you just copying and pasting stock objections against William Lane Craig's argument?

>> No.14312509

>>14312490
If you don't get it, that's fine. Ignore what I say and keep rejecting it.

>> No.14312530

>>14312482
>>14312491
I'm simply stating that arguing for the existence of something outside of the universe is illogical as a result of you not demonstrating why the rules of what is inside of the universe applies to what is outside of it.

>> No.14312550

>>14312530
The unmoved mover argument isn't arguing for a separate god completely outside of the universe. Please try to understand the argument and spend some time with the texts before attempting to refute it. It's like you just Googled "cosmological argument" and you're repeating what you've heard.

>> No.14312569

>>14312550
I've read all his works and that's absolutely what the argument is about. What are you on about? He had to be outside the universe to create it, you pseud bastard. Hate when people spout bollocks like you are without reading the original texts.

>> No.14312585

>>14312569
I totally believe that you've read everything Aquinas wrote. Gregory Sadler hasn't even done that and he's a PhD.

>> No.14312593

>>14312585
Read all his works concerning the argument at hand*
It's apparent that you haven't considering this is all you have to say about what I just told you.

>> No.14312601

>>14311268
because hierarchical causal series are impossible
>why not
best explanation is the paintbrush. It's like saying that a paintbrush can paint by itself by if it had a reeeeeealy long handle.

>> No.14312621

>>14312593
I'm telling you that if the argument from motion is true then God is not separate from the universe. There's a connection because all movement would be ultimately derived from the first mover. You're repeating Kantian objections to a different argument. The only thing you've said to this is that you disagree, so what do you want from me? You don't understand the argument and you can't understand it until you realize this. Until then there's nothing I can do to help you.

>> No.14312646

>>14312006
see
>>14312601

>> No.14312686

>>14312621
Why does the universe need to be sustained?

>> No.14312695

>>14312509
I understand perfectly well, and I offered a rebuttal. When you say that in order for something to become actual it first has to have the potential fo be actual, this can be interpreted in either of two ways:
1. Uncharitably, as blatantly begging the question, since whether change is the actualization of a potential is precisely what is at issue.
2. More charitably, as an interpretation of our linguistic practice of talking about potency. We normally make the distinction of the actual from the merely possible, and the Thomistic doctrine is needed to give an ontological justification of this way of speaking. But the Thomistic account is not the only one available. We can go with the Empiricists and explain potentiality as merely that which is conceivable. So on this account when we say that something is possible it doesn't mean that it exists waiting in the realm of potential being to be actualized, but is merely something that we can imagine being the case.

PS. I know you are probably not going to argue further and state that I simply don't get it, but I'm writing this post anyway for those interested to how one might reply to Thomism from an Empiricist standpoint.

>> No.14312713

>>14311199
based

>> No.14312726

>>14312695
I haven't been arguing with you to begin because this is stupid. You're accepting the concept of potential without even realizing it, and merely arguing that we shouldn't call it anything. All I've done was point this out to you.

>> No.14312749

>>14311277
>why the fuck is /lit/ fixated on Aquinas
Because /lit hates christians and wants them dead and gone

>> No.14312754

>>14312686
Because matter doesn't move itself. Wood doesn't turn itself into a bed, and bronze doesn't turn itself into a statue. In order to become a bed or statue the matter must derive its power of movement from a craftsman. The craftsman doesn't explain his own movement since he goes in and out of existence. Any attempt to explain motion like this will inevitably come to a thing which isn't moved by anything else. This thing can't be the universe since the universe changes.

>> No.14312755

>>14312726
>>14312235 here, he isn't accepting the concept of virtually existing potentials in a new ontological realm, that's precisely the Thomist idea he (and I) reject in this argument.

>> No.14312760

>>14311284
>being whose essence includes existence
Thats a gross misrepresentation of what catholics say.

>> No.14312767

>>14312755
I'm well aware that you believe you're rejecting it. You posit an actual changing into an actual but this is simply nonsensical without potential. If you don't see it I can't help you.

>> No.14312781

>>14311182
Did you know Aquinas wrote most of his Summa in a French monastery, which was later converted to a coffeehouse?

>> No.14312783

>>14312430
They are just nitcpicking your language, because they are pseuds.

>> No.14312806

>>14311262
^ outdated physics

>> No.14312807

>>14312470
And your entire premise operates on the unproven assumption that there is anything outside the universe. First prove that we should care about that or we will just go ahead.

>> No.14312829

>>14312807
I'm assuming you're replying to the wrong person. The argument from motion starts with the observation of change or motion. The argument itself doesn't assume anything other than that the change is real and not an illusion. From these observations we come to the inference that there is something other than matter. You're asking for people to prove the conclusion of the argument while ignoring the argument.

>> No.14312834

>>14312806
What makes them outdated?

>> No.14312848

>>14312767
Change in general is an illusion. Physics requires a universe in which past, present and future have the same ontological status. Identity-over-time is not a thing, nor is transformation.

>> No.14312858

>>14312848
I knew somebody was going to say this the minute I brought it up. Predictable bastards.

>> No.14312878
File: 15 KB, 460x259, elon.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14312878

>>14311199

>> No.14312903

>>14311277
Not true at all. One who is a skeptic and is actually curious about ideologies and learning will read a religious book without submitting to the religion. There are many people who have read multiple holy books and have remained skeptic. You're honestly unwilling to think logically and periodically if you convert without reading the books. It's like saying you're going to stop eating onions but won't read the ingredients.

>> No.14312905

>>14312767
>change can't occur unless the outcome virtually exists
There are no grounds for accepting this statement

>> No.14312939

>>14312905
I'm sure you believe that.

>> No.14312986

>>14312939
"Not an argument"

>> No.14313024

>>14312986
You're very perceptive. I would pat you on the head if I could.

>> No.14313045

>>14313024
Considering my argument goes unrefuted, I am correct, and you are wrong. Refute me or leave

>> No.14313056

>>14313045
You didn't make an argument. You merely said " I don't believe this" and then you started acting like I owed you something. Go on not believing it for all I care.

>> No.14313063

>>14311262
What does "unrealized potential", in this case, mean? I don't see any logical succession here.

>> No.14313069

>>14313056
"burden of proof"

>> No.14313080

>>14313069
...is a phrase that idiots love to say even when it isn't appropriate.

>> No.14313106

>>14312726
>You're accepting the concept of potential without even realizing it, and merely arguing that we shouldn't call it anything.
Of course I am accepting the concept of potential (and I fully realize it!) What I am saying is that when we talk about potentiality, this shouldn't be interpreted as an inherent quality of things, but merely as what we can imagine as opposed to what objectively is the case.

So when I say "it is possible that the flying spaggheti monster exists" that means that I can form the image of the flying spaghetti monster inside my head, regardless of whether it actually exists or not. It is not that the flying spaghetti monster only exists in potential form waiting to be actualized. When we talk about potentiality we don't gain deep insight into the nature of things, we just let our imagination run wild. I don't really care whether you agree or not, but I want you to at least understand the position.

>> No.14313124

>>14311262
>what are cycles

>> No.14313151

>>14313106
We don't imagine that an acorn turns into a tree. This is something we know. The acorn does not have the potential to turn into a pig that flies. This is because the acorn does in fact have an inherent potential as opposed to an infinite "imagined" potential. We know for a fact that the spaghetti monster couldn't exist in actuality because spaghetti does not have the potential to wake up, fly, and point fingers at people in paintings. It can exist virtually in our imaginations, but not actually.

>> No.14313153

>>14311182
That's literally the first two points of his argument.
1. Things are in motion
2. Things are only put in motion when they are acted upon

It assumes Aristotelian physics so you can take issue with it on those grounds but it does justify why there would need to be an unmoved mover within his argument.

>> No.14313324

>>14313153
did aristotelian physics ever get refuted

>> No.14313592

>>14313151
So as I understand it your objection is something like this: My account seems to treat potentiality as something purely subjective - merely that which is imaginable. Yet, it is undeniable that some things which we imagine can be realized in the world, while others can't. I am obliged, therefore, to provide an account of potentiality as it is in the objects to complete my theory.

My response will run through roughly Humean lines. When an accorn turns into a tree, this is not because it belongs to the essence of the accorn the potential to become a tree. Rather, the transformation is merely a succession of phases, which are not themselves inherently connected in any way. They are mere regularities of succession.

Again, we know for a fact that when an acorn is inside the soil, is sufficiently wetered etc. it's going to grow into a tree. The claim is that this succession of phases is all there is to it. Nature is full of objective regularities - when a number of conditions is satisfied things run their course in certain ways, and these we call laws of nature.

>> No.14313600

>>14313324
Yes but the metaphysics of Aristotle isn't contingent on the physical world as he understood it. We know the stars don't move eternally but we don't them to in order for things like hylomorphism to be true. This is the mistake that a lot of enlightenment philosophers made. They rightfully threw away the ancient physics but they assumed the metaphysics was wrong as well.

>> No.14313666

>>14313600
so do you believe thomism is correct

>> No.14313674

>>14312117
get a load of this guy

>> No.14313685

>>14313592
>Rather, the transformation is merely a succession of phases, which are not themselves inherently connected in any way. They are mere regularities of succession.
This would make science impossible since there would be no necessary connections between events.

>> No.14314046

>>14313685
Necessary connections between events have nothing to do with the empirical sciences in the first place because they cannot be observed. Whether they exist or not is mainly a philosophical controversy.

>> No.14314170

bump

>> No.14314511

bump

>> No.14315257

>>14312806
Reddit

>> No.14315320

>>14312829
No, I actually agree with the argument.

>> No.14315325

>>14312848
>Change in general is an illusion
So if I cut off your dick will you still be able to fucc?

>> No.14315333

>>14312903
>curious about ideologies and learning
Thats not why people take religions seriously.

>> No.14315349

>>14313151
This guy gets it.
>>14313666
Thomism is correct, but as Thomas himself said before he died it's all just straw compared to the wholeness of truth.

>> No.14315356

>>14314046
False. Science is based on claims of high conridence that pretty much translate to neccessity, which is the entire reason why it is reliable at all.
If some things don't neccessarily follow, thehy are not reliable, and as such there is no reason to have confidende in them as such they are not scientific but speculative.

>> No.14315369

>>14311182
I thought it was self evident that nothing created can be "moving" without first being moved, and that by principle of inductive reasoning that there must be some prime mover that, by necessity, moves without itself moving?

I though Aquinas' question was just common sense, like asking "where does this river water come from?" Is this that 'based' internet reasoning i've been hearing about? Where we just pretend we don't think about origins for anything beyond what we want to?


> failed to demonstrate why the universe requires a first cause
because its a stupid question. why do logical proofs need to happen at all? why does 1 + 1 need to equal 2? Its a meta-question that doesn't make any sense. Or am i misunderstanding what you're trying to say?

>> No.14315388

>>14315356
Wrong. Science consists in a set of observed regularities. There is no metaphysical necessity attached.

>> No.14315391

>>14311207
idk I think the elon weed poster had a pretty right case

>> No.14315397

>>14315369
Motion is an illusion. Aquinas's entire approach is hopelessly out of date.

>> No.14315417

>>14312006
not that retard but I've taken a discrete math and logic course so I feel I know enough to reason about this.

X happened.
How did X happen?
W caused X, that's how X happened.
But what caused W?

So If i understand correctly by necessity a causal chain requires some origin that can be deducted by induction.

There are some interesting properties with origins:
- They do not have an origin (they are absolute)
- They cannot be acted on (immutable)
- They are unique (only one)
- some other properties I'm forgetting here

By nature of a causal chain, there must be an origin BY NECESSITY.
By definition of an origin and its properties, it is truly a "prime mover" or "first cause".
Knowing this, It follows that IF there is a causal chain, THEN there is an origin.

Applying this to the world we exist in and the laws of physics, there must be a causal chain and necessarily an origin to that chain, which means that there was some creating force that was not created, and that's what Aquinas called God.


>>14315397
I don't think Zeno's Paradox applies to finite elements/actions that cannot themselves be divided. Perhaps with time, but then why does time keep moving?

> Motion is an illusion
please elaborate, I'm skeptical

>> No.14315450

>>14315417
Motion presupposes object-persistence through time, which is an artifact of the human mind. The bounderies we impose to define "objects" in space and time do not actually exist at the physical level.

>> No.14315506

>>14315450
> Motion presupposes object-persistence through time
classical physics still works on macro objects despite the uncertainty of their quantum composition. Am I to suppose that the object doesn't exist If its not in my view merely on the principle that at a quantum mechanical level the principles are less mechanical and more probabilistic? Furthermore, even on a quantum mechanical level causality still holds, even though mechanical motion (thusforth "movement") stops being deterministic.

> The bounderies we impose to define "objects" in space and time do not actually exist at the physical level.
What boundaries? I thought empiricism was descriptive rather than prescriptive?


Am I misunderstanding you? Is what you're saying that this is all a simulation and nothing exists? I'd like to see some proof on the claim that space-time doesn't exist, it seems preposterous given what I know.

>> No.14315598

>>14315506
>classical physics still works on macro objects
Only approximately at best. The ultimate reality that both Relativity and QM point to does not consist of "objects" occupying space. Rather, there are just continuous fields defined over spacetime (past, present, and future).

>less mechanical and more probabilistic
QM is consistent with determinism. That's not an issue.

>What boundaries? I thought empiricism was descriptive rather than prescriptive?
The imaginary boundaries that we draw around "objects" to distinguish them from each other. For example, we intuitively consider a table one thing and a chair another thing. In reality, there is just spacetime embedded with continuously varying properties - energy, etc.

>Is what you're saying that this is all a simulation and nothing exists?
Hell no. I am simply describing the ontology of modern physics. There are no discrete particles or distinguishable objects of any kind in modern physics.

>I'd like to see some proof on the claim that space-time doesn't exist
Spacetime certainly exists -- in fact, it's the only thing that does. All the "objects" we think we observe are just the local attributes of this manifold.

>> No.14316259

>>14315598
>For example, we intuitively consider a table one thing and a chair another thing. In reality, there is just spacetime embedded with continuously varying properties - energy, etc.
Not him, but this is precisely what happens when you take people inherently incapable of understanding philosophy and let them think they have some sort of key to metaphysics. All the spooks and chimeras of modern metaphysics are here- deeming objects mere arbitrary mental limitations while imposing arbitrary definitions based on those very "illusions" (thing, manifold, "one," "mere properties") etc. It's really just ancient nominalistic theories thrown slapdash at what appear to be the limits of measuring and quantifying of the world around us, with some all too easy new age platitudes stapled on to the end.

>> No.14316291
File: 193 KB, 450x418, Cancerous Pepe.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14316291

>>14311182
>he thinks Aquinas was arguing for a linear origin of the universe

>> No.14317074

>>14315356
Right, but the claims of science to necessity can be easily accounted for in a way that falls short of the stronger metaphysical necessity of the Rationalists. We say for example that the sun always rises in the east through physical necessity. That means, the Empiricist would say, merely that there is an objective regularity that is always repeated in the same way. As a matter of objective fact, things regularly behave in certain ways, and not others, and that's what constitutes physical necessity in the objects.

But there is also a stronger form of necessity some philosophers subscribe to, that there is a hidden link between events that it somehow guarantees that the effect always follows from the cause in a stronger sense than it's just always happens. And it is said that if these necessary connections could be somehow detected we wouldn't even need the scientific method to discover laws of nature, because by merely looking at a cause, we would see the necessary connection with the effect instead of actually running an experiment. This seems implausible for two reasons. First, although science has at this point a very thorough knowledge about many aspects of the physical world, so far we haven't found a single necessary connection. Secondly, it is very hard to explain what such a connection would be even in pronciple. The idea is that there is some kind of causal mechanism that connects causes with effects. But however intricate this mechanism is, what it could ever consist of except a succession of phases?

>> No.14317234
File: 4 KB, 214x236, images.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14317234

>>14312167

>> No.14317337

>>14311182
Hello OP, my name is Ed Feser and I am going to take a huge dump in your mouth.
https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/07/so-you-think-you-understand.html

>> No.14317495

>>14317337
timestamp or gtfo, Mr Fesner.

>> No.14318833

>>14311262
For once, no, that's not why the idiotic aquinas take is wrong. It's that it managed to forget there is an argument against infinitely chained essentially ordered causes.
>>14312470
The universe isn't an object independent of the set of objects that make it up.
>>14315598
That all objects subdivide to some fundamrntal atoms or fields isn't a new objection. Sure, you can deny change at all, but that's barely more interesting than radical skepticism.

Potentials don't need to exist in a strong sense for the argument to work, just directed, meaningful change at all. They do allow less complications to the metaphysics, but aren't relevant to his 5 proofs.

>> No.14319962

>>14311262
What if you deny potentials or the assumption that there must be a head from which reality derives.

>> No.14320055

A more mathematical mind would understand that an infinite sequence would not need a first cause. And even if there was a God, it would have to be infinitely self-causing in order to will itself into being. So either way you fix it, there's no first cause.

It seems to be counterintuitive that stuff could always exist, or that some phenomena defy our commonsense understanding of causality. Quantum mechanics has taught us that the universe can behave illogically, especially in its extremes and edge cases.

>> No.14320199

The Big Bang is just another way of saying "let there be light"

>> No.14320223

>>14311262
absolute pseudobabble

>> No.14320228

>>14312601
The universe is not a paint brush.

>> No.14320229

>>14311270
its a greek thingy