Was it autism?

Reminder that the overwhelming majority of atheists, including philohophers, don't have remotely decent objections to Aquinas' five ways.
Reminder that these people seriously think "who created god" is a serious objection to the cosmological argument.

This basically. I've had people who studied philosophy for their entire lives say "but there could be two gods then." Not only saying it, but living day by day believing it, that it is a serious rebuttal to the quinque viae. It's pretty surreal and anyone who really understands Aquinas agrees with him on the five ways. It's just not even theoretically possible for him to be wrong on that specifically. Anyone who disagrees literally just can't step not even a little.

>The universe isn't finite.
Five ways BTFO by one premise.

It assumes thr possibility of an eternal universe.

What's your point? Aquinas assumes causation. Ever read Hume?

Universe is not eternal, it would eventually go totally black.

yes
youtube.com/watch?v=gHNSuN9GGGo

ever read Leibniz?

Literally proving my point. You think you are the one on top but really the quinque viae prove demonstrably that a universe with no beginning cannot exist. Period.

Yes, kek. And Voltaire.

No, it proves nothing demonstrably. Do you know what demonstrably means? The five ways have never been shown to be sound, only deductively valid. Here's another deductively valid argument for you:
>All things which move have limbs and muscles.
>The earth moves.
>The earth has limbs and muscles.
Proved that demonstrably for you, did I?

No, your analogy is shit because it leaves room for error. Aquinas leaves zero room for error because the logic does not bottom out in anything lesser than existence itself. Hence since all things that exist are contingent, otherwise they would literally not exist which is impossible because existent things can't not exist while existing. You cannot just come along and be like "but dude yes they can."

>Aquinas assumes causation.
Yes, in an exchange of act and potency related to essences, meaning Hume doesn't have any objections and doesn't pose a problem for Aquinas. I know it's easy being a philosophy philistine and not going beyond muh Kant and muh Hume as opposed to actually putting in the effort to understand a high context philosopher with a significant amount of contemporary supporters.
This is not important for the argument at all, because it's arguing hierarchically and not causality from point a to point b. The argument is, to put in perspective, not related to any domino, where they may go on without beginning or the end or may have it, but the ground every domino is standing on. There's a lot more to it of course, could point you in the right direction if you would like.

>they would literally not exist which is impossible because existent things can't not exist while existing. You cannot just come along and be like "but dude yes they can."
Alright Xzibit. Let's just pretend that all these assumptions weren't tackled like 250 years ago by Hume and Kant. Let's just pretend your abstract logic will give you knowledge of what is supposed to be literally unknowable. Fuck philosophy amirite? That shit ended in 1274.

>a theory is destroyed by the existence of an alternative theory

Awesome

I was replying to the claim that
>It's just not even theoretically possible for him to be wrong on that specifically.
I only provided a theoretical possibly, I never tried to disprove it.

>You think you are the one on top but really the quinque viae prove demonstrably that a universe with no beginning cannot exist. Period.
As I see it, proving or disproving such a claim is forever outside the reach of human knowledge, because we can never know if any "axioms" about the workings of the universe deduced from the information that's available to us hold true in "special" cases (the big bang).
>Hence since all things that exist are contingent, otherwise they would literally not exist which is impossible because existent things can't not exist while existing.
Let's say the universe is finite and there was a big bang, aka the beginning of time, then this first point in time is so fundamentally different from any other point of time (in having no predecessor) that it is unknowable if the claim that "all things that exist are contingent" holds true there.

>I haven't read anything written in the past 700 years

Faggot.

Very few philosophers actually engaged with Aqunas outside those who were friendly towards him- Hume doesn't even attempt to deal with his account of causality for example, Kant certainly hasn't read him at all (for Hume it's only very probable, Kant talked about it in his correspondence with Fichte, Spinoza also completely ignores or misunderstands), the same could be said for just about every other major figure. Those who do engage with him are usually not so banally dismissive, for example Mackie, Leibniz and Kenny.

The cosmological argument doesn't need the universe to be finite or infinite in order to work. If you had ever actually read something about it, you'd know this. Aristotle thought the universe never began, Aquinas disagreed with this but realized it's not even relevant to the argument.
Please do point out all those philosophers that actually engaged with the arguments Aquinas and not some bad strawman based on really shitty understanding of his thought and aristotelianism in general.
I'll be waiting

>I haven't read anything written in the past 700 years

Still waiting, user.
Please do point out all those philosophers, and their books, who engage with the arguments Aquinas actually made.
I mean, it's easy right? 700 years.

I'm also still waiting, also post your favorite 20th 21st thomists
Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange
Alsadair MacIntyre
Edward Feser

Maritain wasn't great, Intention went over my head (but the Introduction to Tractatus is excellent) and haven't read Gilson yet.

What does wit have to do with anything?

We’re still waiting.

nice church.. heh..