Why I am not a Christian

File: 63 KB, 850x400, 29.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Why I am not a Christian Anonymous Thu Jun 2 06:34:48 2016 No.8113362 [Reply] [Original]

Has anyone managed to rebut Bertrand Russell's "Why I am Not a Christian?"

Here are some excerpts

>There is no reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all. The idea that things must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our imagination. Therefore, perhaps, I need not waste any more time upon the argument about the First Cause.

> If you say, as more orthodox theologians do, that in all the laws which God issues he had a reason for giving those laws rather than others -- the reason, of course, being to create the best universe, although you would never think it to look at it -- if there were a reason for the laws which God gave, then God himself was subject to law, and therefore you do not get any advantage by introducing God as an intermediary.

>Do you think that, if you were granted omnipotence and omniscience and millions of years in which to perfect your world, you could produce nothing better than the Ku Klux Klan or the Fascists?

>There is one very serious defect to my mind in Christ's moral character, and that is that He believed in hell. I do not myself feel that any person who is really profoundly humane can believe in everlasting punishment. Christ certainly as depicted in the Gospels did believe in everlasting punishment, and one does find repeatedly a vindictive fury against those people who would not listen to His preaching

>There is the instance of the Gadarene swine, where it certainly was not very kind to the pigs to put the devils into them and make them rush down the hill into the sea. You must remember that He was omnipotent, and He could have made the devils simply go away; but He chose to send them into the pigs.

> That is only an example. There are a great many ways in which, at the present moment, the church, by its insistence upon what it chooses to call morality, inflicts upon all sorts of people undeserved and unnecessary suffering. And of course, as we know, it is in its major part an opponent still of progress and improvement in all the ways that diminish suffering in the world, because it has chosen to label as morality a certain narrow set of rules of conduct which have nothing to do with human happiness; and when you say that this or that ought to be done because it would make for human happiness, they think that has nothing to do with the matter at all. "What has human happiness to do with morals? The object of morals is not to make people happy."

>The whole conception of God is a conception derived from the ancient Oriental despotisms. It is a conception quite unworthy of free men. When you hear people in church debasing themselves and saying that they are miserable sinners, and all the rest of it, it seems contemptible and not worthy of self-respecting human beings.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 2 06:38:36 2016 No.8113372 Wittgenstein did when he called all of Russell's non mathematical writings utter garbage which no one should ever read.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 2 06:39:35 2016 No.8113373 >>8113372 How exactly is that a rebuttal?

Anonymous Thu Jun 2 06:52:56 2016 No.8113393

Well, that's wrong Russell. There is such a thing as avoiding the occasion of sin. In other words, not tempting the Lord. Secondly, that confessor would be putting temptation before the nun, however free of evil intent he'd be. Should I read the rest of OP's post? With such a worthless beginning, no.

Anonymous Thu Jun 2 07:11:50 2016 No.8113419

>>8113362
>Do you think that, if you were granted omnipotence and omniscience and millions of years in which to perfect your world, you could produce nothing better than the Ku Klux Klan or the Fascists?

Woah hey dude, if god's real, how come there are things that I personally disagree with in this world???? Checkmate christcucks

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 2 07:19:38 2016 No.8113438 >>8113362 Those arguments are refuting themselves. All he had to do was read some entry-level Christian lit.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 2 07:30:34 2016 No.8113452 >>8113362 >not worthy of self-respecting human beings says it all.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 2 07:31:08 2016 No.8113453 How could Chesterton stay friends with such fucking plebs?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 2 07:38:31 2016 No.8113462 >>8113438 Top notch exposition, christposter/10

Anonymous Thu Jun 2 07:41:14 2016 No.8113467

Dawkins Sr. basically

>There is the instance of the Gadarene swine, where it certainly was not very kind to the pigs to put the devils into them and make them rush down the hill into the sea. You must remember that He was omnipotent, and He could have made the devils simply go away; but He chose to send them into the pigs.

"The vegetarian argument against the existence of God."

Anonymous Thu Jun 2 07:46:45 2016 No.8113477
File: 898 KB, 800x983, (You) 2.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8113462
I'm merely assuming the position of "Why waste my breath when someone else has already said all I'd like to say, but probably much more eloquently?".
You, too, should read some entry-level Christian lit. Mere Christianity, for instance.

Will you grace me with another reply? May I suggest "Lewis a shit" or something in that vein?

Anonymous Thu Jun 2 07:48:56 2016 No.8113480
File: 600 KB, 700x6826, Thomas av Aquino.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>There is no reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all. The idea that things must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our imagination. Therefore, perhaps, I need not waste any more time upon the argument about the First Cause.
Would it be a poorer imagination to think that it had no beginning? I think to imagine a beginning takes more imagination than to imagine nothing. And to disregard an argument regarding the likelihood of a beginning of the universe (everything has a beginning) so easily is horribly cheap.

Secondly, that's not what the argument of the First Cause means, you plebbite. It's a horrifying thing when people who are so widely admired and regarded as great show themselves absolutely vapid.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 2 07:54:38 2016 No.8113496 >>8113477 If you can't refute any of it then you're just answering OPs question for us m80

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 2 07:57:18 2016 No.8113503 No. It just seems a cry for attention. It does not interest me to find out what someone believes or doesn't believe. It's a personal matter and doesn't really need to be spoken about.

Anonymous Thu Jun 2 08:09:03 2016 No.8113516

>>8113480
>Would it be a poorer imagination to think that it had no beginning? I think to imagine a beginning takes more imagination than to imagine nothing.
In this case yes
> lol all these religidiots with their unimaginative "universe has a beginning"
> gives no idea for how his amazing imagination (imazination?) pictures the possibility of a universe with no beginning
It's academic posturing at its worst and unfortunately some people lap it up. He was great when he was doing his word paradoxes but I think meeting God on Earth Wittgenstein and never really getting what he was saying but knowing it was better than anything he was doing brought out the more miserable aspects of his intellect and personality.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 2 08:09:08 2016 No.8113517 >>8113496 You didn't really read my post, did you? The answer to OP's question is: Yes, Lewis, among others, has rebutted those arguments without even trying.

Anonymous Thu Jun 2 08:19:51 2016 No.8113527

>>8113467
>You must remember that He was omnipotent, and He could have made the devils simply go away; but He chose to send them into the pigs.
There is nearly an argument there but it's been done before by other Christians. A better one I think is the ol "How can Satan offer Jesus all the kingdoms of the Earth to rule?"

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 2 08:26:12 2016 No.8113534 >>8113527 >How can Satan offer Jesus all the kingdoms of the Earth to rule? I'm curious, how is that an argument? How is that a good question? Could you elaborate? I'm not even trying to argue, I'm genuinely interested.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 2 08:31:00 2016 No.8113543 >>8113480 The assumption of well-defined, deterministic causality proves to be too much

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 2 08:33:58 2016 No.8113545 >>8113362 >it's another christfag vs fedoralords thread Fucking autists, get this juvenile shit over to /his/

Anonymous Thu Jun 2 08:36:23 2016 No.8113547

>>8113534
It's as simple as it reads. That bit in the Bible just implies a lot of implications and has been interpreted the shit out of. It's a favourite of some or the Gnostic interpretations because you can view it as God isn't all powerful (because the Earth and material things are Satan's)

Anonymous Thu Jun 2 08:38:04 2016 No.8113549
File: 130 KB, 612x380, DELICIOUSLY INTENSIFIES.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8113527
The devil thought the Christ was some prophet, so he tempted him with goods. In this case, all the world. I can't think of a more simple thing. The devil is not betitled "prince of this world" for nothing. It still applies, but it was especially true before the sacrifice of Christ which redeemed us from the devil.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 2 08:40:41 2016 No.8113553 File: 77 KB, 331x338, stop.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8113547 If I had read that before I made >>8113549, I wouldn't have made it. >Gnosticism Shit's dumb.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 2 08:42:43 2016 No.8113557 File: 23 KB, 346x254, chesterton[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8113545 This thread would be more accurately described as "let me tell you why that's wrong, Bertrand old friend."

Anonymous Thu Jun 2 09:09:32 2016 No.8113594

>>8113362
>There is no reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all. The idea that things must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our imagination. Therefore, perhaps, I need not waste any more time upon the argument about the First Cause.
not an argument

Anonymous Thu Jun 2 09:39:12 2016 No.8113652

>>8113419
tbf to this point if everything is as God's plan extended then I think a lot of people might have real trouble trying to work out what it is God's interested in bringing about.

> OK so God was pretty intent on YA from the start, that's clear
> hmmm God intends a world in which some hair dyes work better than others, what's the game plan here
> And God said, let there be many people who go through life not really thinking much and have a pretty muh time, let them play COD and eat hot pockets, let a few of them go at one point to the store for cleaning supplies but buy instead a backscratcher. Yes, yes it's all coming together.

Basically if everything is according to God's design then his intent must be so abstract that I don't really think there's much point trying to work it out or sympathise with his view.

Anonymous Thu Jun 2 09:46:16 2016 No.8113663

>>8113652
desu I think that's one of the defining characteristics of God. the universe is intricate and mysterious. things like hair dyes working better are just a consequence of the way the materials their made of and interact with function, which are much more complex and have all kinds of other uses etc.

>For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
>nor are your ways my ways, says the Lord.
>For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
>so are my ways higher than your ways
>and my thoughts than your thoughts.
Isaiah 55:8-9

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 2 09:54:32 2016 No.8113687 >>8113652 >>8113663 >what is free will what is the fall who is christ it's literally the absolute basics

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 2 09:59:14 2016 No.8113707 I feel so triggered by the "God has given us free will" response to theodicy. Shouldn't an omnipotent being be able to create a universe in which evil and free will can co-exist perfectly?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 2 10:01:50 2016 No.8113714 >>8113480 That chart shows a deep misunderstanding of both causation and time.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 2 10:02:18 2016 No.8113716 >>8113687 >what is free will Go on. Tell us. I'm already laughing at you.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 2 10:09:51 2016 No.8113733 >>8113716 >he thinks free will means absolute independence from any conditions kek http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06259a.htm It'll take you an hour or two to go through, m8

Anonymous Thu Jun 2 10:11:28 2016 No.8113740

>>8113733
It does though, different anon.
Whenever people try to prove that free will exists they start reshaping what it initially meant until the entire discussion has become a new one.
You just started a new discussion.

The classically understood brand of free will doesn't exist.

Anonymous Thu Jun 2 10:14:25 2016 No.8113750

>>8113740
free will never meant that free will is super free will and isn't influenced by anything ever.

So what you're really saying is that whenever a discussion arises it first takes a whole discussion to rid you idiots of your misconceptions, and yet you begin again next time. How embarrassing.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 2 10:16:09 2016 No.8113756 >>8113750 B-b-but "free" as in "freedom" means and always meant being able to do whatever you want all time time, r-r-right? ;_;

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 2 10:17:47 2016 No.8113760 >>8113750 The opposite of all that is true, as I said in my first post.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 2 10:22:17 2016 No.8113774 >>8113707 Your understanding of perfect is limited at best. Gods will is perfect. A human mind is simply incapable of having the correct and objective understanding of what perfection is.

Anonymous Thu Jun 2 10:24:44 2016 No.8113781

Is he retarded? The world did have a beginning. Earthbegan to form over 4.6 billion years ago from the same cloud of gas (mostly hydrogen and helium) and interstellar dust that formed our sun, the rest of the solar system and even our galaxy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Earth

This guy doesn't know anything.

Anonymous Thu Jun 2 10:28:44 2016 No.8113794

>>8113750
>free will never meant that free will is super free will and isn't influenced by anything ever.

Yeah, it does.

Free will is the thesis that there are uncaused mental states that have physical effects.

The thesis is inconsistent with the scientific view that mental states are just ways of organizing physical states, and thus have physical causes.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 2 10:30:19 2016 No.8113801 >>8113781 He's not talking about Earth, you epic retard.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 2 10:31:04 2016 No.8113807 >>8113794 Free will means a choice between tacos and burritos. It doesn't matter what leads you to that choice but the fact you had one.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 2 10:32:38 2016 No.8113810 >>8113801 The universe world had a beginning the Big Bang. The Western world had a beginning Western society. Human world had a beginning in Africa. What world is he speaking on?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 2 10:33:49 2016 No.8113813 >>8113810 I mean Greek society.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 2 10:35:11 2016 No.8113825 >>8113794 >you're misunderstanding what it is >no i am not. here is why the thing i am misunderstanding is wrong kek

Anonymous Thu Jun 2 10:35:20 2016 No.8113826

>>8113794
>for the purposes of discussion, let's call a chair a four-legged platform on which a man may sit. Ok? Is that satisfactory?

>[All agree]

>[Years pass]

>I submit that this item is a chair, though it has three legs only.

>No it isn't, asshat. The rock-hard, set-in-stone, classical definition of a chair is a four-legged platform on which a man may sit. You may say it performs a function similar to a chair's, but the fact that you actually call it a chair suggests that you are totally ignorant of chair classification rules. It is a chair-like object (CLO), but by definition cannot be a chair.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 2 10:37:19 2016 No.8113833 >>8113801 The world did have a beginning though, you mythological retard

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 2 10:38:42 2016 No.8113839 >>8113810 The Big Bang is just the earliest point in time we have any information about. Anything that happened before that point is irrelevant to cosmology.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 2 10:39:17 2016 No.8113841 >>8113774 How then can you trust human judgment about the existence and nature of this alleged deity? You declare the human mind to be flawed in some unspecified way in order to justify an unfounded belief.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 2 10:40:14 2016 No.8113847 >>8113841 Is the human mind not flawed?

Anonymous Thu Jun 2 10:40:31 2016 No.8113848

>>8113362
religion is a coping mechanism once you face your failure of your life, just like other contrived fantasizes, your faith in the scientific method included.

Religions are meant to leave material-bodily hedonism, travels, concerts, foods, sex and so on, for a spiritual hedonism, through prayers for theists and mediation for atheists.
Plenty of material hedonist love to think of themselves as less hedonistic than they are, since it improves their hedonism in thinking that they are not animals...most people who claim to be religious are not all, it is just the way they are.
In buddhism, you even leave this spiritual hedonism, after you have gained it, which is called jhanas, since you understand that this bliss from prayers, which is just a great, but not perfect concentration-stilness, are not personal nor permanent and that you are still prone to avidity and aversion.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 2 10:41:02 2016 No.8113849 >>8113826 Analogy fail.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 2 10:41:34 2016 No.8113851 >>8113833 >scientific realism >2016 fucktard

Anonymous Thu Jun 2 10:43:35 2016 No.8113860

>>8113847
If it is, then you don't have the security of making any sort of claim about anything of this sort. Our thoughts and languages have definite limitations, but within those limits we can work safely. Anything outside - such as supernatural entities - we cannot.

Anonymous Thu Jun 2 10:44:49 2016 No.8113865

>>8113663
No because being omnipotent / omniscient the way the all matter interacts was off God's specific design. So every possible compound and its function is intended and not restricted by any perceived regulatory principles because these also are God's design, it looks like they're regulated by the laws of physics but there are no laws, only chosen specificities. God could have made it so that H20 when heated become a film about Hitler, or he could have made it so that C20 was good at designing robots. There's no such thing as laws or systemic principals in omnipotent / omniscient design.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 2 10:46:18 2016 No.8113868 >>8113839 https://www.technologyreview.com/s/427722/mathematics-of-eternity-prove-the-universe-must-have-had-a-beginning/

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 2 10:48:30 2016 No.8113878 amazing how shitty britain is if this is a famous philosopher there

Anonymous Thu Jun 2 10:49:46 2016 No.8113890

>>8113833
There's no way of knowing. All we can know is what the observable evidence says.

It's irrelevant in any case. Causation does not work the way you think it does. It's just a schema we impose on nature to summarize recurring patterns of physical events. There's no "first mover" requirement, nor is backwards causation disallowed. There's no fact of the matter about causation beyond the inference rules deployed in actual scientific theories.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 2 10:51:48 2016 No.8113898 >>8113362 Just ignore everything Bertrand Russell says.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 2 10:57:31 2016 No.8113917 >>8113868 Susskind demolished that bit of fallacious reasoning: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.5385.pdf

Anonymous Thu Jun 2 10:57:32 2016 No.8113918

>>8113860
I agree with you. I should make it clear that I was not arguing for God since doing so would be impossible to do in objective terms.
I was, however, simply stating a reason as to why "if God real why world not perfect" is a ridiculous argument.

Anonymous Thu Jun 2 10:58:57 2016 No.8113921

>>8113890
I've limited understanding of the matter, but don't delayed choice quantum eraser experiments even show that events have some sort of logical consistency (even 'awareness', in some sense) when played backwards? Time seems like a social construct.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 2 10:59:04 2016 No.8113922 >>8113917 >Susskind HaHAHAHAHAajahahagdHzhzh.mmgaushhshahahahahajajahjababaHabJHSHAHAHAHAGAHAHAAAAAHAAAAAaAaaaaaaa!!!!

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 2 10:59:25 2016 No.8113923 >>8113878 >>8113898 christcucks triggered lmao

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 2 11:00:36 2016 No.8113927 >>8113922 Are you clinically retarded?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 2 11:03:15 2016 No.8113935 >>8113362 None of these are even arguments. These are shitposting on /lit/ tier statements. What a fucking joke of a guy.

Anonymous Thu Jun 2 11:04:03 2016 No.8113937

>>8113921
That's certainly one possible interpretation (but not the only one). I recommend the work of Huw Price and Ken Wharton if you're interested in a retrocausal approach to interpreting QM: http://arxiv.org/find/quant-ph/1/au:+Wharton_K/0/1/0/all/0/1

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 2 11:06:11 2016 No.8113942 >>8113935 Well, Christianity is a fucking joke of a worldview, so his tone is quite appropriate.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 2 11:07:21 2016 No.8113945 >>8113942 >this writing is shit >well he responded to shit so its ok based b a s e d

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 2 11:14:28 2016 No.8113961 >>8113945 If you think Bertrand Russell's writing is "shit", you are a moron beyond words.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 2 11:17:16 2016 No.8113971 >>8113961 His non math writings are awful and Wittgenstein agrees.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 2 11:20:36 2016 No.8113985 >>8113971 Wittgenstein was batshit insane.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 2 11:21:25 2016 No.8113990 >>8113985 Bertrand Russell wasn't omnipotent.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 2 11:23:52 2016 No.8114003 >>8113985 And Russell wrote awful political, ethical and theological commentaries as well as one of the worst philosophy overviews in existence.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 2 11:28:16 2016 No.8114030 >>8114003 Fuck off with that nonsense.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 2 11:29:46 2016 No.8114039 >>8114030 m8, the op is evidence of it for fuck sake

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 2 11:31:28 2016 No.8114046 >>8114039 The worst you can say about the OP is that it is obvious, common sense.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 2 11:32:13 2016 No.8114048 >>8114046 Right, now I know you're trolling.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 2 11:34:00 2016 No.8114057 File: 54 KB, 400x400, 1440166917294.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8114046

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 2 11:37:11 2016 No.8114080 File: 48 KB, 680x604, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8114046

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 2 11:37:57 2016 No.8114082 >>8114048 What? Cite a single sentence he wrote that is false.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 2 11:40:41 2016 No.8114092 >>8114003 >>8114039 >>8114048 >>8114057 >>8114080 ^ christfag having a meltdown

Anonymous Thu Jun 2 11:44:11 2016 No.8114118
File: 106 KB, 540x960, Screenshot_2016-06-02-17-41-01.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8114030
Did you try reading his non mathematical works? Because the Wisdom of the West was fucking torture which can be hated by everyone who isn't in the anglo saxon Hume/Berkley/Locke tradition because he will trigger platonists, aristotelians, chriatians, cartesians, nihilists, hegelians and everyone else by the unfair and untrue representations of said philosophies.
>>8114092

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 2 11:44:27 2016 No.8114121 >>8114092 >I can in no way defend another man's retarded opinions which I have also assumed as my own, so I'll just call samefag on everyone who points out how retarded I am!

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 2 11:49:24 2016 No.8114146 Woah woah woah, back it up guys, I assume that because you're having this argument someone has proved the basic premise that there is a supernatural, and a god exists, and that it is the christian one right? Could someone give me a tl;dr of this proof?

Anonymous Thu Jun 2 11:50:12 2016 No.8114149

>>8114146
>Science is also significantly based on induction and empiricism.
science is based on induction far more than on empiricism. TO be an empiricist means that you do not cling to your speculations, no matter their degree of formalization, and you cling even less to your fantasy of reality and explaining reality and ocmmunicating your explanations.

Anonymous Thu Jun 2 11:53:14 2016 No.8114163

Russell's conceits are fundamentally correct.

The appropriate thing to do, when confronted with conventional religion, is to look at it, think about it a while and, having thought about it a while and come to an appropriate assessment, tilt one's head slightly and utter out the side of one's mouth /hm, I think that's bullshit./

Apologetics are in the - No-no-no just hang on a minute how-about - business. Except there is no how-about. You prod the edifice once, from any which way, and the whole shibboleth comes down. It takes something on the order of human culture, rationalization, to keep it propped up. It's a dance that apolegetics been trained, cultured to do, to defend mysteries, pretend knowledge where convenient, and alternately abdicate knowledge for the same reason.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 2 11:56:26 2016 No.8114173 >>8113714 Not an argument

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 2 11:58:08 2016 No.8114180 >>8114163 This. Well stated.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 2 11:59:16 2016 No.8114185 >>8114149 wait, what? sorry not trying to be argumentative or anything, but I'm not getting how that relates to my, admittedly, overly sarcastically phrased question

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 2 12:06:57 2016 No.8114207 what's with all the LARPing 4chan christians

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 2 12:07:50 2016 No.8114211 File: 18 KB, 353x334, shrek fedora.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8114163

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 2 12:07:57 2016 No.8114212 >>8114185 nobody on earth knows what a proof is, because a proof is a concept.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 2 12:09:00 2016 No.8114215 >>8114163 >rationalization define rationalization

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 2 12:10:02 2016 No.8114218 >>8114212 >any communication between people with different subjective realities is imperfect and relies on axioms that are to one degree or another speculative >ergo, Christianity hmm

Anonymous Thu Jun 2 12:10:59 2016 No.8114221

>>8114215
In psychology and logic, rationalization or rationalisation (also known as making excuses[1]) is a defense mechanism in which controversial behaviors or feelings are justified and explained in a seemingly rational or logical manner to avoid the true explanation, and are made consciously tolerable – or even admirable and superior – by plausible means.[2] It is also an informal fallacy of reasoning.[3]

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 2 12:12:07 2016 No.8114225 >>8114218 >I have a pop-phil definition of Christianity which fits my hedonistic life

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 2 12:13:11 2016 No.8114231 >>8114221 >informal fallacy of reasoning.[3] thinking that fallacies exist outside formal languages return to facebook kuk

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 2 12:16:04 2016 No.8114241 >>8114225 Not sure where you got that one from, considering I grew up with a very serious faith and church, but feel free to define Christianity for my ignorant ass.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 2 12:16:08 2016 No.8114242 >>8114231 so you agree with the 'making excuses' part and the rest

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 2 12:18:35 2016 No.8114250 >>8113477 Lewis's trilemma is a false trichotomy. But I wouldn't expect Christians to be capable of going beyond black-and-white thinking.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 2 12:20:28 2016 No.8114258 >>8114250 >Christians pffffft there are next to no christians here, just a bunch of 20 yo who are rebelling against their peers, who are non-religious it's an identity thing, a cry for attention this whole """"debate"""" is 100% pointless

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 2 12:21:51 2016 No.8114262 >>8114221 I wrote "Russell's conceits" above and I wish to disclaim this post >>8114221 --- it's not me. Not necessarily because I disagree, but simply in the interest of clarification.

Anonymous Thu Jun 2 12:24:09 2016 No.8114268

>>811425
>there are next to no christians here, just a bunch of 20 yo who are rebelling against their peers, who are non-religious
I'm here, but since the discussion is retarded I mostly stayed on why I think no one should read Russel beyond his logic and mathematics
>it's an identity thing, a cry for attention
Every worldview is identity, but why would anyone cry for attention on an anonymous board?
>this whole """"debate"""" is 100% pointless
This is why I only seem to see 4 people arguing about nothing.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 2 12:24:23 2016 No.8114269 >>8114262 ya, sorry should have said 'not that anon'

Anonymous Thu Jun 2 12:28:42 2016 No.8114287

>>8114268
I just want you to know that I respect your beliefs and think that whether they're correct or not Christianity is a strong pillar of the better aspects of civilization.

syke, you're a delusional fuckboy and nobody who matters respects your schizophrenic bullshit

Anonymous Thu Jun 2 12:33:20 2016 No.8114304

for each implication a numbered response so follows;

1. There is infinite energy (or so the theory holds), and this energy is relative to each object; relative at the electromagnetic scale, electron scale, atomic scale. There is beginning and creation everywhere, thusly for each free object. This forms the absolute so:
2. Absolute a type of solute, of which connects to the signal ab. This is the boundaries of power, dependent origination within the mind, and integral to life in a wavelength ->nutshell. The person of the Father is the supreme, Jesus is an apocalyptic intermediary between us and him. To attain the supreme, singular, one must use Jesus, who is a separate solvent relative object in contrast to solute other gods. The law, which is topological, is meant to guide humans to life. Sinful or otherwise. The elementary molecules of life are inherently sinful, thus the intermediary of foregiveness is required. Sin implies death of God. Death is defined as an archetype, where the order is a. elemental/discovery, b. death/space-time c. life/epistemological, where epistemology functions on the method defined elementary, and therefore brings discovery. Death is unresponsive, but still has value just like space-time does, elementally. The law implies all this through God, who does not sin, but lets all be known through his Son who we are to dissociate the old self and become, perfect as in the eyes of the Father, becoming associate with the Supreme.

3. I'm not even Christian, but I have an open mind. History is erased but only the topologically infinite scope of a God encompassing the singularity and beyond would understand that. Perhaps karma is involved with God, and he suffers for us, as the Christians point out. Our life is his suffering, or as the buddhists deduce, life is suffering.

4. As for me, I embrace sin. Sin/Satan is ubiquitous. But karma is real. I've been through hell, with all the devils living out my sins/past lives. (i have schizophrenia)

5. God is a mystery. Investigate more and you might find the pigs were for food, or simply not relevant to us, out of context. The story could be true. Who are we to say anything about God's character from this story? And I like to think the devil has free will, or what good is he?

6. There are many instances where happiness is bad, for example in defiance of the law, where you will be suffering much more than the valued happiness.

7. Define self-respect.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 2 12:34:53 2016 No.8114309 >>8114304 >I have schizophrenia It shows.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 2 12:59:37 2016 No.8114375 >>8114309 #rekt

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 2 13:07:55 2016 No.8114405 >>8114309 Would you like to be my psychologist?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 2 13:19:07 2016 No.8114441 Read Flew's There is a God. He's an analytical philosopher and used to be a strong atheist advocate but now believes in God. He's the dude who came up with "no true Scotsman."

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 2 13:20:46 2016 No.8114445 >>8114441 Sorry, I mean "was" since he died in 2010.

Anonymous Thu Jun 2 13:24:58 2016 No.8114461

>>8114441
A: Antony Flew is dead.

B: He was a deist, not a Christian.

C: His case for God boils down to his personal uneasiness with not knowing the origin (or non-origin) of the universe and incredulity with regards to macro evolution. This is not terribly compelling.

Anonymous Thu Jun 2 13:36:44 2016 No.8114485

>>8114441
Flew had dementia at that time and didn't even write the book.

In 2007, Flew published a book titled There is a God, which was listed as having Roy Abraham Varghese as its co-author. Shortly after the book was released, the New York Times published an article by religious historian Mark Oppenheimer, who stated that Varghese had been almost entirely responsible for writing the book, and that Flew was in a serious state of mental decline, having great difficulty remembering key figures, ideas, and events relating to the debate covered in the book. His book praises several philosophers (like Brian Leftow, John Leslie and Paul Davies), but Flew failed to remember their work during Oppenheimer's interview.

A further article by Anthony Gottlieb noted a strong difference in style between the passages giving Flew's biography, and those laying out the case for a god, with the latter including Americanisms such as "beverages", "vacation" and "candy". He came to the same conclusion as Oppenheimer, and stated that "Far from strengthening the case for the existence of God, [the book] rather weakens the case for the existence of Antony Flew".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_Flew#Book_with_Varghese
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2011/02/was-antony-flew-competent-to-write-his.html

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 2 13:41:30 2016 No.8114495 >>8114461 Sure, I guess. He just made the same argument as Einstein had made.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 2 13:42:26 2016 No.8114498 >>8114495 Einstein wasn't a theist.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 2 13:47:26 2016 No.8114514 >>8114498 http://www.adherents.com/people/pe/Albert_Einstein.html

Anonymous Thu Jun 2 13:50:51 2016 No.8114525

>>8114495
Intelligent men have made all manner of arguments for all manner of positions with regards to the existence or nature of God(s). You can pick one or none of those. Einstein wasn't even always right about physics (not that this means he was an idiot or fraud, but this is the nature of honest inquiry).

The Flew book only became a thing because American Christians are insecure about the fact that vanishingly few intellectuals take them seriously, and so they crow at every hint that they might have some legitimacy on that front. This is how apologists and preachers with lots of letters next to their names become so popular.

Anonymous Thu Jun 2 13:52:39 2016 No.8114534

Bertrand was an all around shithead but that doesn't mean Augustine, Aquinas, Lewis, etc. are good writers / philosophers and it doesn't mean god exists. Le Prime Mover is self-refuting, apologetics are mental gymnastics, and those who unironacally re-adopt Christianity as some sort of fashion statement to glorify Christianity as "the basis of white western civ" or other such nonsense refuse to realize that Christianity is an inherently weak, effeminate, lufe-denying cucky religion and it's not even original, it's a Jewish offshoot.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 2 13:54:12 2016 No.8114537 >>8114534 *life-denying / world-denying

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 2 13:58:55 2016 No.8114548 File: 26 KB, 889x737, spurdo fedora.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8114534

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 2 14:02:53 2016 No.8114561 >>8114548 tips migrant hordes into the west Imago Dei!!!! XDD

Anonymous Thu Jun 2 14:04:04 2016 No.8114567

>>8114525
You think in a small timeframe. You look at contemporary views and think there are less intellectual Christians but you never thought of how there are few intellectuals of any group at any point in time. You must see in a longer period and even into the future. Things change all the time and most alive today will not be remembered in a few thousand years like most aren't remembered from a few thousands years in the past.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 2 14:07:19 2016 No.8114576 >>8114567 I'm not the one who thinks the preponderance of intellectuals who share one's position is an argument for or against it. I'm just pointing out that this is a common insecurity among the earnest believers I know. Reading is hard though.

Anonymous Thu Jun 2 14:17:30 2016 No.8114619

>>8114576
I wasn't arguing against that point and you're not wrong. I wasn't really making an explicit argument on that but I see your point, though you should see that it's not something exclusive to Christians and may even be human nature seeing how fallible we are to abusing the notion of converts and intellectuals yadda yadda. I see atheists making the same point about intellectuals who lose faith, and ultimately I say that it's probably the most pointless argument considering human beings are not good at comprehension.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 2 15:21:04 2016 No.8114837 >>8113707 What makes you think they already don't co-exist perfectly?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 2 15:24:26 2016 No.8114855 ironic shitposting is just shitposting

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 2 15:25:41 2016 No.8114862 >>8114855 The thread is about a specific piece of literature though. Literature doesn't only include things you like.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 2 15:36:11 2016 No.8114901 File: 159 KB, 817x785, Best Guide.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Schopenhauer rebuked that Semitic horseshit far better than Russell ever did. The latter, I hope, will be increasingly recognized for the hack he was in years to come.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 2 16:25:21 2016 No.8115143 >>8114901 There aren't enough fedoras in the world for this post.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 2 16:42:32 2016 No.8115212 >>8115143 >le hat meme why are christcucks so cringey

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 2 16:48:30 2016 No.8115231 >>8115212 >le free thinking teenage intellectual meme Why are Atheists so arrogant?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 2 17:37:55 2016 No.8115390 >>8115231 >everyone who rejects your diluted Judaistic mind meme is a fat teenager in a hat who reads Dawkins get behind me, christcuck, thou art a stumbling block

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 2 19:56:58 2016 No.8116015 >>8115390 >antisemitism Wow it just gets classier and classier.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 2 20:00:10 2016 No.8116024 >>8116015 ? Xianity is Judaic, fundamentally so. Its failings might be unrelated to that but he's not, technically, wrong.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 2 20:00:45 2016 No.8116028 >>8116024 Enjoy hell, faggot.

Anonymous Fri Jun 3 09:45:27 2016 No.8118174
File: 2.15 MB, 2700x6826, aqinas.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Is there any refutation or serious philsophical works outside that one chapter of hume that seriously critiques or disprove Aristotelian metaphysics and its proof for God?

Im reading some Edward Feser and it all seems quite logical and sound. It seems absurd that people would abandon it.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 3 09:47:29 2016 No.8118178 >>8118174 Well Kant and the account of teleology isn't easy to accept nowadays. It's grown out of fashion more than its been refuted.

Anonymous Fri Jun 3 09:57:21 2016 No.8118200

>>8118174
Try to apply Hume's induction shit in day to day life. It just doesn't serve the model of capitalist production people have really got on board with.

That said, there's some work on random walks that actually just assume nothing in the past affects the future so maybe there are some possibilities there for Hume to make a come back.

Anonymous Fri Jun 3 10:10:05 2016 No.8118233

>>8118174
Einstein's relativity. In very strict terms movement is a proprety between two things, there doesn't need be a giant chain of events dating back to some abstract being. Our modern understanding of matter as something that is literally energy which is changing form every moment, and time as something where there is only an eternal present knocks out most of Aquinas and Aristotle's ideas about motion.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 3 12:54:08 2016 No.8118782 >>8113393 read the second quote. The Lord being subject to temptation implies that he exists under the Dominion of laws, hence he is not omnipotent

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 3 12:57:30 2016 No.8118795 >>8118174 Causation is a spook.

Anonymous Fri Jun 3 13:01:32 2016 No.8118808

>>8118233
That's Galileo's relativity bub.

I'd guess you've been at the Feynmann lectures and read that bit about moving from a Cartesian causal model to one based on "events" (I forget the proper name for that) that's more to do with light cojes/no universal time. Prime mover doesn't go away with that either tho.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 3 13:07:04 2016 No.8118824 >>8118808 There no place in fundamental physics for "movement', 'motion', 'causation', etc. Those concepts only have a role in our 'folk physics', which might be useful in day to day life but have no physical basis.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 3 13:33:01 2016 No.8118887 >>8118824 >fundamental physics And what do you think that is? > inb4 it turns out you've excluded everything including thermodynamics

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 3 15:53:42 2016 No.8119379 >>8118174 >Aquinas >"sound" you need to do more reading

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 3 15:56:33 2016 No.8119387 >>8118808 >Prime mover doesn't go away with that either tho. Le Prime Mover is literally self-refutung

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 3 15:56:47 2016 No.8119390 >>8118887 Quantum Field Theory and General Relativity.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 3 15:57:00 2016 No.8119391 >>8119379 >shitting on Aquinas I'm really excited to see the Christposters crusading over this one.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 3 16:06:39 2016 No.8119425 File: 25 KB, 480x712, 1462987263916.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >the are 'people' ITT who are genuinely religious Explain yourselves

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 3 16:08:52 2016 No.8119435 >>8119391 There's no need. Aquinas argued one should only enter a discussion if there is any potential good fruit to be won, and someone who so simplistically disregards Aquinas cannot have any potential for intellectual exchange.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 3 16:10:37 2016 No.8119440 File: 94 KB, 488x720, cop out.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8119435 >anyone who disagrees with me isn't even worth talking to

Anonymous Fri Jun 3 16:12:48 2016 No.8119453

>>8113480
>It's a horrifying thing when people who are so widely admired and regarded as great show themselves absolutely vapid

Aquinas is someone I regard as such a person. His five ways have been utterly refuted since they depend totally on Aristotelian metaphysics. Russell was correct to not consider him a philosopher because he only seeks to erudite on what is found in the Holy Book, not on nature itself

Anonymous Fri Jun 3 16:15:09 2016 No.8119459

>>8119435
>and someone who so simplistically disregards Aquinas

nothing aquinas wrote requires serious consideration

christian apolpgetics is an elaborate system of mental gymnastics in service of defending of an ideology you inherited from the jews, because christianity is, at root, dolled up jusaism

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 3 16:28:34 2016 No.8119492 File: 40 KB, 825x635, 1454309755525.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8119435 top kek m8

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 3 16:31:14 2016 No.8119507 >>8113480 wow so convinced am I after reading this that I am converting to Druze tonight

Anonymous Fri Jun 3 16:37:12 2016 No.8119529

>"by faith alone"
>spends an innumerate amount of time composing a labyrinthine theological tract attempting to rationally argue the existence of god
>labels anyone unwilling to invest time in reading countless philosophical christian shitposting a "fedora"

why

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 3 16:41:32 2016 No.8119542 >>8119529 Don't dwell too long on why the mentally ill do what they do.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 3 16:41:51 2016 No.8119544 File: 163 KB, 377x398, Filiality intensifies.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Does anyone have the pic(s) of that letter that nearly drove that faggot Russell to suicide? I remember kekking heartily.

Anonymous Fri Jun 3 16:43:12 2016 No.8119548

>>8113362
>There is no reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all. The idea that things must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our imagination.

This seems to me to be the atheist's version of 'The lord works in mysterious ways'.

You don't have to suppose the world had a beginning, but you can enquire as to whether or not it's a possibility. To shut down such an enquiry with 'THE WORLD DOESN'T NEED A PURPOSE CREATIONIST SCUM. NEXT QUESTION' seems to be a get out clause.

Anonymous Fri Jun 3 16:45:59 2016 No.8119558

>>8119548
The key difference is that he's not making a positive assertion. Neither party actually knows how things came to be (or didn't), but only one is asserting that this ignorance implies a whole bunch of other stuff. "I do not know," is the appropriate response when asked where things came from, not, "God dun did it."

Anonymous Fri Jun 3 16:52:25 2016 No.8119584

>>8113362
>>There is no reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all. The idea that things must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our imagination. Therefore, perhaps, I need not waste any more time upon the argument about the First Cause.

aquinas woud disagree my little Bertrand

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 3 16:54:53 2016 No.8119589 File: 186 KB, 400x336, vapor pepe.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8119584 >Aquinas Read a damn book for once.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 3 16:56:05 2016 No.8119594 >>8119529 who said anything about faith alone

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 3 17:00:41 2016 No.8119613 >>8119594 the bible

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 3 17:04:39 2016 No.8119628 >>8119589 Has anyone ever disproven Aquinas's Unmoved Mover argument? serious question....

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 3 17:06:01 2016 No.8119636 >>8119492 These are getting so specific, I love it.You can taste the annoyance behind it.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 3 17:14:12 2016 No.8119661 File: 30 KB, 855x893, circle-2.900x1200.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8119628 Here is my proof.

Anonymous Fri Jun 3 17:15:52 2016 No.8119666

>>8119628
A: Even if you accept that there is an unmoved mover, nothing about that implies that this mover is what you would recognize or even be able to comprehend. That it would suit one's own idea of a God is wild speculation.

B: It's very possible that the multiverse doesn't have a beginning and so infinite regress is totally fine.

C: Why is the unmoved mover exempt from needing a cause? Aquinas doesn't address this beyond pointing out how nice it is that an unmoved mover fits with his theistic aesthetics.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 3 17:16:19 2016 No.8119667 >>8119636 that image is already months old

Anonymous Fri Jun 3 17:30:51 2016 No.8119710

>>8113362
I've never read the book/essay/whatever it is, and I'm sure he elaborates on all this stuff, but the statements provided here are completely unconvincing.

The first statement isn't wrong but it's pointless. All it says is you can't prove God by that method, it's not an argument that he doesn't exist, it's not even an argument that it's false.

For the second one, there's probably a flaw in his logic, but even if there isn't it's pointless because it attacks a specific theological argument, not the existence of God. The third is just an emotional argument that attempts to persuade the same thing, and lacks any semblance of logic on its own. Skipping ahead, the one about the pigs is the same as the third point, and once again lacks any sort of logic to back it up.

If you knew for a fact that hell was real, as Jesus believed, then how could it be immoral to preach it? It'd be like saying preaching that 1 + 1 = 2 is immoral. And just because you have some baseless personal conviction that believing in hell is immoral, doesn't mean it's not real. Also, I think that simply considering someone immoral or inhumane because of a belief they hold is pretty close-minded, but whatever.

I don't even know what he's trying to say with the second to last point. That the church is wrong because they inflict suffering? Suffering is entirely dependent on the individual and thus is completely relative, but regardless to say that God does not exist because the institution of the church is immoral is obviously wrong. And he states that last bit as if it's self-evidently wrong, when as far as I can tell there's no inconsistency in it.

His last statement pretty much gives him away. He has no true reason(s) to believe or not believe in God, he just thinks Christianity is unfashionable and doesn't want to associate himself with it.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 3 17:35:52 2016 No.8119732 >>8119666 >just read the word multiverse kek

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 3 17:38:01 2016 No.8119741 >>8119732 That statement still stands if you replace it with "universe" so I don't see what you're so smug about.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 3 17:51:17 2016 No.8119792 Bertrand Russell was an atheist beta male white knight feminist. Literally, I mean it this time, reddit the human being.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 3 17:51:24 2016 No.8119794 >>8119741 The multiverse is a philosophical absurdity

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 3 17:51:47 2016 No.8119796 >>8119710 >and I'm sure he elaborates on all this stuff, You'd be wrong

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 3 17:53:58 2016 No.8119806 >>8119794 A universe doesn't need a beginning eithe... You know, what, just beat the hell out of that windmill. Show it who's boss.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 3 17:57:43 2016 No.8119827 >>8119794 In your dreams, bitch boy.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 3 18:00:26 2016 No.8119843 >>8119796 Really? So he was basically just a proto-pop writer then?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 3 18:03:16 2016 No.8119853 >>8119843 Russell wrote many books - some philosophy, some social commentary, etc. The OP is quoting from one of his non-philosophical books aimed at the common man.

Anonymous Fri Jun 3 18:53:28 2016 No.8120072

>>8119794
so is Le Unmoved Mover

it's an apologetic expediency for trying to rationalize "god", but unironic christfags don't understand that even if you accept this argument you can smuggle in anything as the god, which doesn't stop them from trying to assert it's the god of the bible

>>8119792
he was indeed, he was a literal cuck and a disaster of a human being, but that doesn't make aquinas right and doesn't mean the christian god exists, which is what gets lost in this constant christfag shitslinging

people forget that the entire impetus for the resurgence in unironic chtistianity is a reaction against modernity, which isn't bad in itself but returning to christianity is just being ignorant of what got us here in the first place

Anonymous Fri Jun 3 20:49:14 2016 No.8120514

>>8119391
>>8119435
>>8119459

Which books refute Aristotelian metaphysics?

>>8119661
The unmoved mover is more about how change exists than the beginning of the universe. Aquinas doesnt even make that point despite it being constantly misattributed to him.

>>8119666
>Even if you accept that there is an unmoved mover, nothing about that implies that this mover is what you would recognize or even be able to comprehend. That it would suit one's own idea of a God is wild speculation.

They can comprehend God a fair bit due to logical necessities - ie his need to be pure actuality. As for the more specefic nature of God rather than a deist one that is why revelation is important.

>It's very possible that the multiverse doesn't have a beginning and so infinite regress is totally fine.

See the above points. Likewise infinite regress isnt fine unless you go full Parmenides and hold any change to be illusory

>Why is the unmoved mover exempt from needing a cause?

Because the existence of motion/change in other things necessitates it.

> Aquinas doesn't address this beyond pointing out how nice it is that an unmoved mover fits with his theistic aesthetics.

Literally not true

>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.

Take a look at >>8118174 as well

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 3 21:01:48 2016 No.8120572 >>8120514 >change exists what a startling insight!

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 3 21:02:49 2016 No.8120579 >>8119387 Don't tip your fedora so violently. >>8119390 Both those things are causal. You can derive entropy from QFT and GR forbids information from travelling faster than light speed (which is also the speed of time)

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 3 21:04:10 2016 No.8120587 >>8120572 >what a startling insight! You're getting there. Just a couple more ideas to string together now.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 3 21:08:25 2016 No.8120607 >>8120572 >what a startling insight! Thats how axioms work, 1+1 =2 is an axiom of math for instance

Anonymous Fri Jun 3 21:14:43 2016 No.8120629

>>8120579
>Don't tip your fedora so violently.

again, everyone who doesn't accept 13th century apologetics is a fat neckbeard in a hat. for someone so opposed to modernist status signaling you sure are quick on the trigger about deploying epic internet memes

even if one accepts the prime mover argument, which is an asinine special exception in itself, what is there to suggest it is the god of aquinas?

this is what I mean when I say nu-christian apologetics is half-hearted. surely the apostles envisioned a resentful sperg defending thomism on an anime image board as their spiritual heir

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 3 21:22:20 2016 No.8120660 >>8119843 >>8119853 Everything he wrote, except his work on mathematics, is surely pop.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 3 21:23:00 2016 No.8120666 >>8120629 >even if one accepts the prime mover argument, which is an asinine special exception in itself, Its a logical necessity for change/motion in things to take place.

Anonymous Fri Jun 3 21:23:11 2016 No.8120668

>>8120629
>again, everyone who doesn't accept 13th century apologetics is a fat neckbeard in a hat.
You don't have to accept it, but claiming it is self refuting is fucking arrogant.

As for the whole
>fedora neckbeards are a myth
We all know you exist, stop the secret society make believe

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 3 21:58:26 2016 No.8120829 >>8120668 It only seems arrogant to you because there's so much reverence behind Aquinas. Aquinas had the decency to argue in a logical form, and certain logical statements are self-refuting, case-closed.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 3 22:23:42 2016 No.8120907 >>8120666 only if you're in equal parts illiterate and willingly ignorant of your humanist narcissism

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 3 23:21:20 2016 No.8121085 >>8120907 Can you actually demonstrate the flaws in Aquinas/Aristotles logic and reasoning here or not? Im genuinely open to change here.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 01:22:04 2016 No.8121527 >>8113362 bump

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 01:25:26 2016 No.8121540 >Why I am not a christian >Argument is essentially "It's 2016 come on"

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 01:25:50 2016 No.8121543 >>8121085 http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Thomas_Aquinas#Quinque_viae No need to type out what is freely available.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 01:40:19 2016 No.8121586

>>8113362
>battling spooks

"Hey guys! Ghosts aren't real. Here is a lifetime of ghost jokes. I'll start with one. Q. Where do baby ghosts go during the day? A. Day-scare centres! Wait a sec... I think my best friend might be boning my wife" - BERTAYNRAND RUSSELL TERRIER RIP

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 01:44:04 2016 No.8121593

>>8121543
>A commonly-raised[2][3] objection to this argument is that it suffers from special pleading. While everything in the universe is assumed to have a cause, God is free from this requirement. However, while some phrasings of the argument may state that "everything has a cause" as one of the premises (thus contradicting the conclusion of the existence of an uncaused cause), there are also many versions that explicitly or implicitly allow for non-beginning or necessary entities not to have a cause. In the end, the point of the premises is to suggest that reality is a causally-connected whole and that all causal chains originate from a single point, posited to be God. That many people using this argument would consider God exempt from various requirements is a foregone conclusion, but citing "special pleading" because finite causal chains are said to have an uncaused beginning is hardly a convincing objection.

They are correct that the "everything has a cause" argument is wrong and that Aquinas's version doesn't fall into the special pleading category.

>A more pertinent objection is that, even assuming that there is a first cause, the argument utterly fails to address how we can know its identity. The assertion that it must be the particular God that the arguer has in mind is a complete non sequitur. Why not the deist God?

Moving the goalpost, Aquinas was only arguing that there is logical proof for an unmoved mover to exist and that such a being is what we refer to as a God. His arguments still provide at a base level proof for a God.

Why not some kind of impersonal, eternal cosmic force?

Because change/moving and even existence of necessitates Gods interaction.

Why not shape-shifting aliens from another dimension? Why not a God that sends Christians to hell and atheists to heaven?

Aliens would run into the same issues of requiring a God figure as well.

>Or maybe the simplest of all, why not the Big Bang as the first cause?

This is simply a mistake of thinking Aquinas was only talking about the formation of the universe rather than how change/movement is possible at all.

>There is nothing in the argument that would allow one to determine any attributes of the first cause.

Actually there is quite a bit. Take a look at the second to last pannel in the first column. The unmoved mover has very specific attributes which aliens and other beings do not have.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 01:47:37 2016 No.8121606

>>8121593
>hrough modern science, specifically physics, natural phenomena have been discovered whose causes have not yet been discerned or are non-existent. The best known example is radioactive decay. Although decay follows statistical laws and it's possible to predict the amount of a radioactive substance that will decay over a period of time, it is impossible according to current understanding of physics to predict when a specific atom will disintegrate. The spontaneous disintegration of radioactive nuclei is truly random and might be uncaused, providing an arguable counterexample to the assumption that everything must have a cause. Others, who hypothesize deterministic laws underly quantum mechanics, object to the validity of this counterexample, citing that knowledge regarding such phenomena is limited, and thus the random disintegration of nuclei is not a sound example of something without a cause. As with the Higgs boson, an absense of evidence at one point in time does not imply an absense of evidence at another point in time, and a lack of information regarding a cause cannot prove non-causality.

This doesnt actually refute Aquinas point.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 01:56:41 2016 No.8121640

>>8121593
>Why not some kind of impersonal, eternal cosmic force?
>Because change/moving and even existence of necessitates Gods interaction.
Does it?

>This is simply a mistake of thinking Aquinas was only talking about the formation of the universe rather than how change/movement is possible at all.
Trying to separate the two would be too stupid for words. If you set a bunch of things into motion, they can bounce off each other for a really long time, creating the effects we observe.

Are you suggesting that Aristotelian essentialism is for real and that God must place his finger on every essential transition? Because if that's the case then I can not help you.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 01:59:16 2016 No.8121649 >>8121606 Saying that doesn't make it so.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 02:16:05 2016 No.8121701

>>8121640
>Does it?
It does althought this is more to do with his argument for contingency than the unmoved mover.

>Trying to separate the two would be too stupid for words. If you set a bunch of things into motion, they can bounce off each other for a really long time, creating the effects we observe.

The thing is that big bang is more of an event rather than the foundation force. For things to "bounce" it still requires an unmoved mover in each instance. The big bang could certainly be responsible for the creation of a great deal of matter but it still requires an unmoved mover to create.

>Are you suggesting that Aristotelian essentialism is for real and that God must place his finger on every essential transition? Because if that's the case then I can not help you.

Who do you see as providing the best counter argument for Aristotelian metaphysics?

>Saying that doesn't make it so.
Reread that quote its only an argument against the notion of everything having a cause which is not an argument made by Aristotle or Aquinas.

Are you suggesting that Aristotelian essentialism is for real and that God must place his finger on every essential transition? Because if that's the case then I can not help you.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 02:28:53 2016 No.8121729

>>8121701
What motivated God to make the first move?

What then is the source of his energy?

If nothing can move itself, how then God was able to move himself?

If I understand correctly, then Aquinas called God "pure potentiality," but this just raises more questions than it answers.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 02:37:40 2016 No.8121750 >>8121729 Aquinas also assumes that there is some sort of perfect stillness that is the default state of things without the force he wants to convince us is out there, but this is an arbitrary assumption.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 02:45:28 2016 No.8121769

>>8121729
>What motivated God to make the first move?
Gods desire to evidently.

>What then is the source of his energy?
I havent read that far into Aquinas yet.

>If nothing can move itself, how then God was able to move himself?

God is unchanging IIRC Aquinas and Aristotle use move in the sense of change.

>If I understand correctly, then Aquinas called God "pure potentiality," but this just raises more questions than it answers.

Its the opposite, God is pure actuality. Likewise without a unmoved mover you start running into a lot of issues regarding the possibility of change.

Take a look at the discussion in >>8118174

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 02:50:30 2016 No.8121781

>>8121769
>God is unchanging
>but at one point out of the eternity in which he has existed he decided to make a universe
There is a problem here. You're thinking about this like it's Newtonian physics, but if God has desires then what drives them? God? That's just an infinite regress of saying that God drives his own desires to drive his own....

>God is unchanging IIRC Aquinas and Aristotle use move in the sense of change.
So am I. The question is the same either way.

>Likewise without a unmoved mover you start running into a lot of issues regarding the possibility of change.
Do you?

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 02:56:42 2016 No.8121792

>>8121781
>There is a problem here. You're thinking about this like it's Newtonian physics, but if God has desires then what drives them? God? That's just an infinite regress of saying that God drives his own desires to drive his own....

The discussion in that picture discusses how God functions as a being of pure actuality.

>So am I. The question is the same either way.

Oh in that case refer to the second to last pannel in the first coloum in the picture I posted.

>Do you?
You do take a look a the quote from aquinas in >>8120514. Without it you fall into the problem of infinite regress

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 02:58:12 2016 No.8121795 >>8121792 >The discussion in that picture discusses how God functions as a being of pure actuality. That's special pleading, not an explanation.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 03:01:21 2016 No.8121799 >>8121795 >That's special pleading, not an explanation. Its isnt as a being of pure actuality it necessary for the change discussed there to take place. The unmoved mover necessity is a conclusion rather than a premise.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 03:09:54 2016 No.8121821

>>8121799
How about this. Something with the ability to create a big bang has been around for an eternity. It creates a big bang. We don't know why. There is no reason this is more or less plausible than a "being of pure potentiality." It's the same thing, just less satisfying to a theist.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 03:13:22 2016 No.8121830 >>8120572 reddit

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 03:14:18 2016 No.8121832 >>8120607 >1+1=2 Unless those 1s are velocities. Uh oh.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 03:16:58 2016 No.8121838

Hey op. Ever real Will Eisner's "A Contract with God"? Really good graphic novel, and I think it's right up your alley.

An old man has a crisis of faith when his daughter dies.

I have the complete trilogy, and it's quite possibly my favorite book. The third book, Dropsie Avenue, actually changed my opinion and outlook on the downfall of my city.

It's not a book for children, but I recommend it to anyone who likes to read, or appreciates a good story.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 03:23:10 2016 No.8121849 >>8113503 I like you

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 03:25:51 2016 No.8121857

>>8121849
Pretty fatuous post T B H. Russell lived in a place where most people subscribed to a belief system that also included believing that their beliefs must be a public matter. Might as well say that wanting to have any say in the policy that governs you is just a cry for attention.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 03:30:21 2016 No.8121870

>>8121821
>How about this. Something with the ability to create a big bang has been around for an eternity. It creates a big bang. We don't know why. There is no reason this is more or less plausible than a "being of pure potentiality." It's the same thing, just less satisfying to a theist.

A being of pure potentiality cannot logically exist as potentiality is something that can only have existance in relation to something that actually is there.

What Ive noticed is that atheists and agnostics just rejected Aristotle and Aquinas with a handwave because their conclusions are less satisfying to them.

I asked ages ago for someone to provide or show a refutation of Aristotlian metaphysics and I just insults, silence or at best a refutation of points mistakenly attributed to Aquinas.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 03:33:05 2016 No.8121877 >>8121857 Russell BTFO'd by Lawrence, Chesteron, pretty much anyone who's isn't an Anglo autist I wish Anglos would stop reminisicing about this idiot and focus back on Shakespeare, it's a way out of your psyhotic national character

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 03:37:27 2016 No.8121890

>>8121870
>A being of pure potentiality cannot logically exist as potentiality is something that can only have existance in relation to something that actually is there.
This is an assertion based on a system that falls apart if a case that violates it is possible. The system does not have any way to show that my case is not plausible. You've only stated that it doesn't fit Aquinas's model, which is precisely the point.

Aquinas's arguments aren't even that implausible, but rolling them out as proof is where the problems come in.

>What Ive noticed is that atheists and agnostics just rejected Aristotle and Aquinas with a handwave because their conclusions are less satisfying to them.
>I asked ages ago for someone to provide or show a refutation of Aristotlian metaphysics and I just insults, silence or at best a refutation of points mistakenly attributed to Aquinas.
That's not me and those guys are probably asleep, so go complain to someone who cares.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 03:38:28 2016 No.8121893 >>8121877 Didn't say Russell was good. I merely said that his desire to speak up about his beliefs isn't some huge character flaw in itself. He had plenty of other character flaws to be certain.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 03:51:49 2016 No.8121921

>>8121890
>This is an assertion based on a system that falls apart if a case that violates it is possible. The system does not have any way to show that my case is not plausible.

Its not an assertion its a proof based on the frame established by Aristotle, in the same way that all claims are made within a certain framework.

A being of pure potentiality makes sense in the same way that a square circle makes sense

>Aquinas's arguments aren't even that implausible, but rolling them out as proof is where the problems come in.

What reason is there for rejecting his framework/axioms?

>>	Constantine !!m+/90K/qoQS Sat Jun 4 03:55:46 2016 No.8121926 >>8121877 Anglo culture started drying the day their king was beheaded.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 04:04:53 2016 No.8121940

>>8121921
Aristotle's framework boils down to man-made labels for man-perceived states. It doesn't account for all manner of things we see in physics now.

>By faith alone do we hold, and by no demonstration can it be proved, that the world did not always exist
This is the headline of the slide show you keep referring people to, and a critical part of Aquinas' case. He himself admits it is through faith alone that he assumes a beginning to things. Do you take things founded on faith as proof of other things? Because if the answer is yes, then I just don't know what to tell you.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 04:07:28 2016 No.8121950 >>8121926 1 Timothy 2:12

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 04:19:32 2016 No.8121974 >>8121832 Velocity would typically be a vector rather than a scalar.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 04:22:25 2016 No.8121984

>>8121940
>Aristotle's framework boils down to man-made labels for man-perceived states. It doesn't account for all manner of things we see in physics now.

What are some good example of this? Why do you find Aristotle's framewroke less accurate than other ones?

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 04:30:08 2016 No.8122011

>>8121940
Physics now is still causal. Part of the basis for physics is considering one state what will happen in future states.

You're also not criticizing Aristotle's argument on the prime mover, rather you're going "uh well he was like uh wrong about a lot of things"
Y

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 04:39:44 2016 No.8122027

>>8122011
>>8121984
>What are some good example of this?
>Physics now is still causal
Except for all the stuff that appears to come out of absolutely nowhere, and by appears, I mean all consistent models show that there is inherent randomness to the behavior of certain particles and you get hilarious impossibilities when you try to resolve this, like things encountering themselves in the past. Einstein spent a lot of time trying to remove this randomness because it displeased him.

>>8121984
>Why do you find Aristotle's framewroke less accurate than other ones?
Most frameworks and axiomatic systems are hubristic, to say the least. Aristotle's isn't completely ludicrous, but the way Aquinas uses it has flaws, like the possibility of a situation proposed in >>8121821 that turns his prime mover into a meaningless mystery.

>>	Constantine !!m+/90K/qoQS Sat Jun 4 04:41:15 2016 No.8122029 >>8121950 This doesn't mean women are supposed to be mutes.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 04:42:16 2016 No.8122032

>>8122027
>Except for all the stuff that appears to come out of absolutely nowhere, and by appears, I mean all consistent models show that there is inherent randomness to the behavior of certain particles and you get hilarious impossibilities when you try to resolve this, like things encountering themselves in the past. Einstein spent a lot of time trying to remove this randomness because it displeased him.

How does that demonstrate the his actuality/potentiality divide and all his other metaphysical principles are false?

>Most frameworks and axiomatic systems are hubristic,

Which frameworks arent?

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 04:48:04 2016 No.8122042

>>8122027
>Einstein spent a lot of time trying to remove this randomness because it displeased him.
Einstein didn't like spooky action at a distance. It happens that the two are linked.

8 get it, you read something in a pop sci book about the Copenhagen interpretation and now you're all like "I now finally see the world as a random mess". Copenhagen interpretation is still causal, but it's a causal chain of probability states. You have now learned something.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 04:54:25 2016 No.8122060
File: 4 KB, 193x188, 2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

I really do think this is a pile of nonsense. He makes the point that we believe in a beginning because that's how limited our minds are, and a beginning may not even exist. This means he believes in a possibility of pure infinite existence and understands that our minds are too limited to comprehend it. That being said, he then questions the actions of an omnipotent and omniscient God. Like what the fuck, he knows we are unable to understand things to their true extent, why go on to act like he is disappointed with the actions of an omnipotent being??

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 04:58:09 2016 No.8122070

>>8122060
Tbh I don't see how infinite regress would be all that hard to imagine. Kids use the ol "infinity times what I said" argument all the time. I think the concept that things can keep going on forever and have been going on forever is easier to imagine and really more comfy.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 05:13:49 2016 No.8122099

>>8122032
We're getting into rambling territory here. The question of the validity of Aquinas' case has been over since i asked why God doesn't have an external cause of any sort and was given a list of his superpowers as if that explains it.

There are many types of causal relationships an event can have, but Aquinas doesn't allow for those, which could, maybe, in some way I'm not seeing, explain his God and make the whole thing coherent, but he doesn't and it's not.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 05:17:37 2016 No.8122112

>>8122099
>We're getting into rambling territory here. The question of the validity of Aquinas' case has been over since i asked why God doesn't have an external cause of any sort and was given a list of his superpowers as if that explains it.

Did you actually read the descriptions though? They logically set out the traits that an uncaused being would have to have not just a list of "superpowers"

>There are many types of causal relationships an event can have, but Aquinas doesn't allow for those, which could, maybe, in some way I'm not seeing, explain his God and make the whole thing coherent, but he doesn't and it's not.

What type of causal event would not fit the actuality/potentiality model though?

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 05:18:26 2016 No.8122113

>>8122099
>There are many types of causal relationships an event can have, but Aquinas doesn't allow for those, which could, maybe, in some way I'm not seeing, explain his God and make the whole thing coherent, but he doesn't and it's not.
What the bloody hell are you going on about? It sounds like you think it's incoherent because you don't like the conclusion, and so are grasping for an atheist version of a god of the gaps.

I mean what other causal links?

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 05:39:56 2016 No.8122147

1. It's not because of the "poverty of our imagination. Kant has showed that we necessarily tend to think that the world has or doesn't have a begining, and that both of these ideas are contradictory in themselves. So he limits the theoretical use of reason by understanding. This is a necessary illusion of our reason, not a "poverty of imagination". And these are two different ideas, whether the world has a begining or if there's a creator of the world or not. He meshes these things together.

2. This refutes only the theological view that God is reasonable, at the lvl of reason (catholics, Acquinas), while not that God is beyond reason and conditiones it (Descartes God for example).

3. Arfument of evil. But this doesn' refute the existance of God.

3. Many religions believe in hell and are based on the fear of it, this is not just Christianoty. So this is not an argument against Christianity.

4. Again, not conlusive, problem of evil and omnipotence.

5. Can't come up with an argument.

6. No. Origin of monotheism is with the Jews, who were slaves, and is based on a Law between this people and God and is directed against despotism (story of Moses).

I am an atheist, but this is just bad thinking, he grasps nothing about religion, and nothing about Christianity, doesn't even have his facts right.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 08:13:59 2016 No.8122454 >>8122060 >DUDE LIKE WE CAN'T UNDERSTAND GOD WITH OUR PUNY HUMAN BRAINS LMAO >proceeds to go on about how the concept of the prime mover is totally logical and rational I can't begin to tell you how fucking retarded this all this

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 08:55:17 2016 No.8122541 >>8119794 There is no universe, except the universe we talk about. We don't even know what we do not know. Perhaps the universe extends beyond our knowledge, in which case this implies that there is a multiverse.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 08:57:31 2016 No.8122543 >>8113362 it's a simplistic, boring piece, but only because it focuses on answering simplistic and boring arguments. I was expecting something more sophisticated.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 09:05:48 2016 No.8122558 >>8122454 > the 'you're arguing therefore you're just as bad' meme Do you feel proud?

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 09:05:53 2016 No.8122559

Anything that is not (God), actually exists. Therefore God is null. This is 0. From God, everything is a successor, inductively. 0 is persistent in the superset of any set's sets that are subsets of the set. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_number#Constructions_based_on_set_theory

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 09:07:38 2016 No.8122567 >>8122559 Null is not 0 m80

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 09:10:29 2016 No.8122574 >>8122541 yes goy, your little abstractions are totally real, as real as what you feel

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 09:17:08 2016 No.8122590

>>8120514
>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.

This makes God rather a manifestation of pure reasoning, basically a universal meme. This doesn't prove there actually exists a defined God. Nihilistically, there is such a God, but is simply attributed with nothing to offer.

But seriously, the theory holds that there exists infinite subatomic particles. These particles offer the mechanics of the universe, being parts, after all. There are laws.

But these are all nihilistically ontological. This implies a universal deconstruction (post-structuralism) of fields and physics, because everything is deductively relative (structuralism).

However, physics/chemistry actually go on to define what is potential, so the whole argument is moot.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 09:17:34 2016 No.8122591 >>8122574 >goy > using the word go makes me feel like my opinions are somehow more enlightened How does it feel being you?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 09:19:54 2016 No.8122595 >>8122567 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empty_set

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 09:21:02 2016 No.8122599 >>8122595 That's exactly how it isn't 0. Stop trying to bullshit and educate yoself

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 09:23:30 2016 No.8122608 >>8122574 I don't know what you're talking about and neither do you.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 09:25:29 2016 No.8122616 >>8122599 I'm not trying to bullshit, and you don't know me.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 09:29:39 2016 No.8122625 >>8122616 O={}!=0 or {0}

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 09:30:22 2016 No.8122628 >>8122625 I definitely read {} = 0.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 09:30:41 2016 No.8122633 >>8122625 O

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 09:31:42 2016 No.8122637 >>8122628 4chan cannot handle null symbols. Cross it out and it's right.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 09:34:35 2016 No.8122647 >>8122637 And wikipedia prints it 4 times in the article on construction of natural numbers?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 09:39:34 2016 No.8122659 >>8122647 I don't understand what you're trying to say. If they're actually saying the null set is 0 it's wrong. The cardinality is 0 but that's different to it being 0

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 09:42:21 2016 No.8122667 >>8122659 Feel free to edit the wikipedia article, which is what I'd rather trust.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 09:47:54 2016 No.8122687 >>8122667 I wasn't asking you to trust me. By educate yourself I meant pick up a book on number theory.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 09:51:40 2016 No.8122692

>>8122687
I wasn't saying I distrusted you. Rather than saying "educate yourself," you should have explained cardinality or provided something simple like a link. I'm also not the one who is obsessed with knowing everything and discarding opinions that I'm ignorant of.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 10:06:07 2016 No.8122730

>>8122692
>Rather than saying "educate yourself," you should have explained cardinality or provided something simple like a link.
M8 I am not your fucking employee or teacher or some shit. Take more responsibility for your own education.

That does not include whining on the internet "b-but muh wikipedia". Wikipedia is literally shit. Download an old encarta torrent or something, way way better if you like that encyclopedia schlock.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 10:10:51 2016 No.8122747

>>8122687
With any emergent algorithmic linguistic system, there is leaves of a basic formulated signals; it is appropriate to plot an array at the origin (0) of a referenced base nil, as the branches of the leaves trickle down.
For more philosophy, check out the routing of the armies in Hindu religion. This is similar to the void signal [new](roots in object | death, sleep etc) which have no phenomenological substance being having the value 0. Signals can be void, static, null etc.... This also connects with the Heart Sutra. No/un are universal booleans, which when spoken persuasively, multiply the object word (e.g. fold) by 0.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 10:14:17 2016 No.8122757 >>8122730 Better yet, provide this link. Way to contribute nothing to the thread.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 10:17:18 2016 No.8122771

>>8122747
I appreciate what you're saying but set theory is part of a super formalisation of mathematics (it also coincided with a number of language changes in English around mathematics). When we're talking of a null set {} being an element of every set, it really isn't right to call that 0. It has a different modality of meaning I guess similar to how aleph (cardinal transfinite) and little omega (ordinal transfinite) are different. Like how 1 isn't the same as 1st. Or how an entry of 0 isn't the same as no entry at all

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 10:18:36 2016 No.8122774 >>812275 Halmos' Naive Set Theory should be okay. H

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 10:19:50 2016 No.8122781 >>8122757 Halmos' Naive Set Theory should be okay.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 10:21:15 2016 No.8122786 >>8122771 So you're interpreting null with a different model (e.g. a heierachy with respect to time/memory position of the algorithm)?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 10:27:57 2016 No.8122816 >>8122559 >>8122786 You need to go back through the discussion. In day to day parlance sure null can mean a number of things, but you can't be so informal when saying null is persistent in every set. It's p straightforward to define a set without 0.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 10:33:26 2016 No.8122836 >>8122757 > spoonfeed me!

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 10:36:51 2016 No.8122852 >>8122836 >obvious shit post

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 10:38:10 2016 No.8122859 >>8122786 In which case this is a function on null.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 10:47:41 2016 No.8122901 >>8122852 Why is it that infants are so obsessed with eating and shitting?

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 11:29:10 2016 No.8123049

>>8113362
>If you say, as more orthodox theologians do, that in all the laws which God issues he had a reason for giving those laws rather than others -- the reason, of course, being to create the best universe, although you would never think it to look at it -- if there were a reason for the laws which God gave, then God himself was subject to law, and therefore you do not get any advantage by introducing God as an intermediary.

So having a 'reason', a preference, a motive is being bound by some unwritten law? I don't think that follows.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 12:35:39 2016 No.8123274 >>8122574 yes goy, the Jewish god Yahweh and his Jewish son Jesus are totally real, as real as what you feel, cuck yourself for Israel

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 12:54:03 2016 No.8123319
File: 55 KB, 573x540, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8122112
Aquinas's logical attributes of god do not follow. I don't know how else to say it. He arrives at the idea that there must be an end of the line, but we know there actually doesn't have to be such an end, and he doesn't answer why it must be singular or process knowledge in a way that makes sense to us. The need for a being of pure actuality is on the same tier as Platonic forms, since it can be dispensed with without damaging any of the rest of the metaphysics assumed here. As to where the metaphysics assumed fall into question, see below.

>>8122113
Your incredulity doesn't mean much. Causes do not have to precede their effects in a relativistic model. That's not "everything's a mess,". It's just one of Aquinas's assumptions shown false.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 13:05:23 2016 No.8123349

>>8123319
>Causes do not have to precede their effects in a relativistic model.
Aquinas doesn't need the arrow of time to always point forward. If a cause happens in the future of an effect it wouldn't matter, just that there are causes and effects.

This doesn't happen in Einstein's relativity tho.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 13:20:14 2016 No.8123385 >>8120607 >Thats how axioms work, 1+1 =2 is an axiom of math for instance Wrong.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 13:22:19 2016 No.8123390 >>8120579 >Both those things are causal. You can derive entropy from QFT and GR forbids information from travelling faster than light speed (which is also the speed of time) Wow, you are deeply confused.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 13:23:22 2016 No.8123396 >>8120660 You have no idea what you are talking about.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 13:25:02 2016 No.8123404 >>8120666 Nonsense. 'Motion' is an approximation used in classic physics.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 13:32:32 2016 No.8123430 >>8122042 >Copenhagen interpretation is still causal, but it's a causal chain of probability states. You have now learned something. You couldn't be more wrong. Copenhagen is explicitly non-causal. That's literally its defining feature.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 13:34:59 2016 No.8123442

>>8123349
>By faith alone do we hold, and by no demonstration can it be proved, that the world did not always exist
It's been fun, but if you still think Aquinas PROVED a god rather than suggesting a plausible world in which one exists, knowing that the above statement is critical to his model, just go on about your life and don't try to run for office please.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 13:35:33 2016 No.8123446 >>8122454 This.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 13:49:59 2016 No.8123495

>>8123430
>That's literally its defining feature.
It's really not. Some people (misinformed or idiots) have claimed it non causal or non deterministic, but copenhagen has a causal chain of probabilities. Look at cat inna box: you know there is a chance of the cat being dead and a chance of the cat being alive because of how you set up the experiment. The cat isn't suddenly going to be a rabbit or be eating food or be an experiment involving a pendulum when the outcome is observed and the wavefunction collapses. People get confused because of the move to probabilities but it changes very little.

Broglie Bohm would fit the guy's argument better because you can plain switch around cause and effect and not care.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 13:54:41 2016 No.8123513 >>8123442 That whole comment is a non sequitur. What you quoted even backs up my whole point. Aquinas isn't arguing for something like "the big bang was god!!!!", he doesn't care if the universe has a temporal beginning.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 14:00:25 2016 No.8123535

>>8123513
>Aquinas isn't arguing for something like "the big bang was god!!!!
Where did you get that from? Aquinas is arguing that there is a being that can cause a big bang or other such initial event without altering itself.

>he doesn't care if the universe has a temporal beginning.
>"the world did not always exist" t. Aquinas

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 14:03:39 2016 No.8123555

>>8123495
>It's really not. Some people (misinformed or idiots) have claimed it non causal or non deterministic, but copenhagen has a causal chain of probabilities.

Wow, where do I even start with this? The Copenhagen interpretation explicitly rejects "realism" - which is the metaphysical view that the universe contains unobservable objects causally interacting with each other to produce the phenomena we observe, and it rejects the idea that the job of physics is to characterize and explain that underlying reality. Rather, Copenhagenists are scientific instrumentalists who believe that physical systems generally do not have definite properties before being measured, and that the job of physics is to create a predictive structure that accounts for all observed phenomena in a tidy manner.

>Look at cat inna box: you know there is a chance of the cat being dead and a chance of the cat being alive because of how you set up the experiment. The cat isn't suddenly going to be a rabbit or be eating food or be an experiment involving a pendulum when the outcome is observed and the wavefunction collapses.

Literally, what? You sound deeply confused.

>People get confused because of the move to probabilities but it changes very little.

What? No one is claiming that cats are turning into rabbits. Where are you even getting this horseshit?

>Broglie Bohm would fit the guy's argument better because you can plain switch around cause and effect and not care.

OK, you have to trolling. De Broglie–Bohm is a deterministic -- and more importantly a REALISTIC -- theory. It attempts to characterize the reality underlying observed quantum phenomena. Within dBB, not only do events have causes - EVERY outcome has a cause. You couldn't be more wrong.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 14:06:21 2016 No.8123564 >>8123555 >Atheists will try THIS HARD to deny the love of Christ I feel sorry for you, brother.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 14:34:18 2016 No.8123661 >>8123564 >being such a mental and emotional cripple and having had such a shitty childhood that you need to believe in a Sky Jew to feel loved sad

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 14:35:40 2016 No.8123668

>>8123555
>Copenhagenists are scientific instrumentalists who believe that physical systems generally do not have definite properties before being measured, and that the job of physics is to create a predictive structure that accounts for all observed phenomena in a tidy manner.
Yeah m8. Now consider that rather than particles these probability clouds interact in an equally causal way to any other hypothetical object you want to throw in (eg proper hard billiard ball like particles) with another interpretation. It does also somewhat assume what you've called a realist view there since that is what we get at the end with observation and wave function collapse.

Have you really just learnt shit by rote and regurgitated it? Come on. (That's maybe a little harsh, I'll happily go through how copenhagen is causal step by step since you've obviously put a fair amount of effort in, and I remember being confused on this point for a bit too).

Broglie Bohm you couldn't say what's cause and what's effect. The guy is trying to argue that direction of cause and effect matters (it doesn't) and with Broglie Bohm it's almost arbitrary which way around you put them. Doesn't harm the prime mover argument tho.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 14:44:30 2016 No.8123696 >>8123668 There is no cause and effect in the Copenhagen interpretation. There are only observations and probabilities of observations. Copenhagen is the main non-causal interpretation of quantum mechanics.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 14:56:27 2016 No.8123736 >>8123564 >he believes in a fairy tale I feel bad for people like you.

Anonymous Sat Jun 4 17:20:39 2016 No.8124303

>>8120514

>unmoved mover

I am the guy you were responding to. My beef is that the unmoved mover seems to explicitly rely on causality, an unbroken chain of cause and effect, and implies a deterministic universe. However, Bell's Theorem gives that a deterministic universe cannot have free will.

There are serious doctrinal implications/contradiction relating to the non-existence of free will, not the least of which being that sin cannot exist in the absence of free will, and without sin you cannot have Abrahamic religion. Aquinas was aware of the apparent contradiction, and would never truly reconcile it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 4 17:27:42 2016 No.8124326 >>8113373 not many people understand what makes for a sound argument and how that is different from a dramatic, emotional statement.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 5 00:04:45 2016 No.8125680 >>8119558 >"I do not know," is the appropriate response when asked where things came from, not, "God dun did it." 100% this

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/lit/ - Literature