oh, well that clears things up!
if god made the universe then who made god?
why not tho?
Agreed. Top pseud.
pretty sure god would have to actually exist in order to make anything
implying that which was always there must be created
What came first? The chicken or the egg?
a created being is that which has been acted upon or 'moved', a mover is therefore required. Since it is impossible to have a sequence of moved movers ad infinitum (because this would still resolve in an initial impotence) there must needs be something unmoved by which all else was created. This unmoved thing (deity) would thereby not be composite or of the same substance of anything which is created. so the question of creation in regards to deity is absurd and stems from a lack of comprehension
the attributes that such an unmoved mover would as the result of logical process have form what we (used to) conceive of as "God"
Aquinas doesn't say everything has a cause
and logically comes to the requirement of a necessary creator
damn the boy
yeah but there could also be contingent creators too
There are contingent creators. But there must be a first creator that is necessary, not contingent
listen to the third podcast
Okay but I'm just saying asking the question, if you invoke a God then what caused that particular God, isn't unfounded.
oh fuck I'm a theist now fuck you op
I have been sitting here racking my pee brain for 10 minutes about time loops and antimatter bombs and big bangs and quantum superposition and just fuck... there had to be a first...
God is literally that retarded kid who used to write "first" on cod 360 noscope compilations in my mind now...
someone send help
I'd like to see this fucking social media psued-o try to summarize Kant
You're changing the definition of God. God is the name for the first cause of everything. It is fundamentally immutable, necessary, and initial.
What caused God?
is ridiculous; that is changing what we mean by the word "God."
Say we found a very power being that made humans, then we called it God—with the attributes that I listed. But later, we found out that that being we called "God" was created by something else. We would cease to call it "God," because we had discovered it is a contingent being. That does not mean its creator is God—with the attributes—, but that there must be a singular being that we can call "God" being fully justified in doing so, given that that being fits the "God" definition. We may not discover it, but Aquinas logically proved it as necessarily existing.
Do you understand it now and why that question is worthless?
No, it seems like semantics at this point. The salient point is a mind that apprehends this universe isn't necessarily the only mind that apprehends a universe.
'tis my DOODY
God is the initial, necessary and immutable first cause of everything
therefore there is a God
Truly the atheists have been defeated. Good work, knight of the faith.
It is not semantics at all, not gonna let that slide by. Anyone smart thinks the universe had a beginning.
And are you speaking of a multiverse? It's still the same issue.
The whole point of Aquinas' arguments to to show in a general fashion that all contingent beings, things that did NOT have to necessarily exist, require one non-contingent cause to get the ball rolling for it all, so to speak.
It can't be more than one necessary creator either—Aquinas addresses this.
tries to condescend
learn modal logic, it's embarrassing
I'm saying this all amounts to an argument for neoplatonism, not any specific religion, especially not Abrahamism with a very specific conception of God. I am not an atheist myself.
Veeky Forums is for the discussion of literature, specifically books (fiction & non-fiction), short stories, poetry, creative writing, etc. If you want to discuss history, religion, or the humanities, go to /his/.
Anyone smart thinks the universe had a beginning.
*simultaneously blocks your path and your most likely direction of retreat*
Anyone smart thinks the universe had a beginning.
If anything, its actually at least reasonably intelligent people who propose an alternative since this is rather intuitive and taken as a first principle by geniii and dullards alike.
lol just read the fucking Upanishads nigger and stop being gay
uh Summa Theologica, now its a Veeky Forums thread you can go back to writing your magnum opus user
I mean yeah, it's Platonistic. Whoever said it lead to a specific religion, though? I didn't, nor did Aquinas; that is clearly not the intention. Aquinas uses these arguments in a whole arsenal for proving his religion. I mean, how would you justify Catholicism(don't use a red herring to redirect this discussion)? We can agree you would have to justify that religion on its fundamental deistic level. Then you would move on to more theologically specific arguments.
Tl;dr: we understand physics therefore it exists and moral law=religion.
He’s not much deeper than that desu
This is not of a pure scientism appeal, but the scientific evidence weighs in favor of a beginning of the universe.
The intuition among scientists and subsequently Atheists was an eternal universe. Besides, I was just making a hyperbole..
The scientific evidence may well point in the other direction one hundred years from now.
Yeah it's a pretty bad argument, isn't it? Seems only natural to condescend to someone who thinks it means anything.
I mean it may, or it may not. The possibility of it occurring it not a proof, nor evidence, any how. By saying this I do not discredit the probability of it being true, regardless of how much it slims with time, ever since the idea of the universe's beginning gains weight and support from scientific induction.
lmao the cope is real (not that user btw ;))
Let's see why it's bad, then; I see you talkin' it, but I wanna see you walk it, too.
Do you agree that God will never be a component in the empirical regress, i.e. that no matter how much we understand about the universe, that we will never be able to measure God in the Thomistic form of the unmoved mover?
I think that user meant that the guy who greentext'd in a condescending way made a greentext with "1 premise only" then a "conclusion"; and that is illogical.
Too, the user he greentext'd was clarifying a definition
the presuppositions behind the definition of god, the need for the definition, the form of the thing defined, the necessity for it and finally the idea that this is the only possible ontology are all fucking stupid
t. relatively disinterested agnostic
Aquinas got BTFO'd years ago
Yes. The scientific evidence for a beginning of the universe is inductive in two ways. It's scientific induction(I test/observe a bunch....it is highly probable that X) and it's an inductive argument for a deistic god(it's highly probable that there is a prime mover).
Aquinas provides a deductive argument from logic though; it is strong. And I say that the inductive arguments above are in favor of Thomas' proofs.
all fucking stupid
You need to elaborate.
Didn't know being thorough was
I mean, we're talking about the most crucial issue of man. But you're a
relatively disinterested agnostic
and I'm surprised you even cared enough to reply given your relative disinterest, though.
A comment from that video:
Alright, I'm just going to hit the points that are wrong here as they come. I could start out by saying that the case he's reading is not how Aquinas actually presented his case but is more of a summary, but it's not a bad summary so we should let that pass. Anyways, on to the errors!
The First Way
Firstly, solipsism would not imply a denial of motion. Most would confess it even, since they can at least see that their mind changes from one state to another. Even if their mind is the only thing that exists and that everything else is an illusion, the illusion still changes, as does their mind. A better example of someone who would deny motion would be Zeno and Parmenides.
Secondly, the point that we "cannot understand infinity". We do actually have a pretty decent understanding of it and we use the concept all the time. If you were to go around saying "We can't know that the limit of 1/x as it approaches zero! We can't understand infinity!", people would rightly dismiss you as just being silly. Similarly, Aquinas has good reason to deny that there can be an infinite chain of moved movers because to be a moved mover is essentially to be used instrumentally by what comes before you. It is a derived power, which implies that there is ultimately something it is being derived from. To use a common example, a paintbrush needs a painter to move it, and it will not move itself even if we make the handle infinitely long.
Thirdly, it does not contradict the second premise because God ISN'T in motion. Hence the reason God is an unmoved mover.
Fourthly, Aquinas goes over the reasons that this unmoved mover as necessarily being God in the third question of the Summa Theologica, while these arguments for God's existence were laid out in the second question. A blueberry muffin could not be the unmoved mover for many, many reasons. For one, the unmoved mover is something that cannot in principle be moved. Muffins can be moved. QED.
The Second Way
Fifthly, while similar, the second way is distinct from the first way. The first way looks at change in general, while the second way is looking at efficient causes. Give Aquinas a little more credit than that.
The Third Way
Sixthly, the "higher contingency" would still fall prey to this argument. The whole point is that you ultimately need something that ISN'T contingent to provide a bedrock for everything else.
Seventh, "we don't know of any such time" is a stupid objection because Aquinas is DENYING the existence of such a time. I cannot stress enough how much this guy is missing the point.
Eighth, we do know that there would be nothing. Nothing comes from nothing is a pretty well accepted metaphysical principle among Christians and atheists alike.
Ninth, the point that "there only needs to be one thing that isn't contingent" is precisely Aquinas' point. That thing is God.
Tenth, if blueberry muffins come into existence, then they're contingent... Does he not know the definition of contingent?
Eleventh, it has to be a "being" because it's something that exists, as in "to be". Blueberry muffins count as "beings" in this context.
Twelth, a particle does not seem more likely because that particle clearly WAS contingent. Hence the reason that big super particle doesn't exist anymore.
Thirteenth, God is not a big complicated thing. In fact, God is as simple as it gets, hence the doctrine of divine simplicity which, again, Aquinas goes over in the third question of the Summa.
Fourteenth, the question of how an uncontingent being came to be is a really, really stupid question.
I do not
nope. and nope
goodbye christfaggots Tat Tvam Asi
Aquinas isn't talking about contingencies going back in time to a theoretical beginning of the universe but instead his arguments are concerned with change happening in the now. He saw God as a sustaining our existence which is why all this talk about whether or not the universe had a beginning is irrelevant. It's not what Aquinas argued.
The Fourth Way
Next, there is an error in the summary he is reading from, or at least a poor description of what Aquinas meant (since again, he's not directly quoting Aquinas in this video but simply reading a summary of the arguments). I'll put less blame here then for AA then, especially since he recognizes this is a bad summary as well. Basically what Aquinas was arguing here is that we have gradation of being, so we need something who is "being itself subsisting". God does not need to be the fattest and the skinniest person in the world, but the fattest and skinniest people in the world would derive their limited existence on something which is pure existence.
Fifteenth, in the writings of Aquinas and Augustine, there is a strong philosophical connection between "being" and "goodness". Goodness indicates a kind of completeness or fullness of being. Attributing only positive traits to God, who is Being Itself, is not arbitrary here then. AA is once again showing exactly why he should indeed have left this to greater minds than his own (although Dawkins does a pretty bad job here too).
The Fifth Way
Sixteenth, Aquinas is arguing here that the existence of natural law implies the existence of a natural lawgiver. Saying "things happen according to natural law" isn't an objection, it's a premise Aquinas is working with in the first place.
That sums up all the objections I got in my first pass of the video anyways. A lot of these errors AA makes are understandable since Aquinas worked from a pretty solid Aristotelian metaphysical framework that AA is unfamiliar with, but all the more reason that he should shut up on matters he doesn't know anything about, especially when you're trying to say one of the most eminent minds of the entire Middle Ages was really just retarded.
You need a better reason for God himself not needing a cause than "I define him as not needing a cause."
Everything that is in motion is moved by something else. This cannot go on forever because if it did there would be no first mover, and consequently no other mover as well. This is because second movers don't move except when moved by a first mover, just as a stick does not move anything except when moved by a hand. So a first mover which is itself unmoved by anything else is necessary to explain motion.
I think the idea would be that he is the maker of necessity and thus does not himself have to have a reason. the thing which contains all reason and necessity would itself require none as they would all be enveloped within its parameters. I don't agree with this or think this is the case
We don't claim to know how God is uncaused, but why it makes sense he is uncaused.
This is just the good ol' God Of The Gaps. You don't know where things came from exactly so you're sticking God in there so it makes sense to you. Have you considered that many things about the universe simply are not known yet and that it doesn't matter whether that's unintuitive?
I get that, but it's fairly silly if you aren't personally invested in the existence of a god.
I have no grounding in my convictions
It's not a god of the gaps there's nothing that could conceivably come before the first mover.
If you admit that you can't measure God (which would make sense if he's infinite), you have to admit that the question of whether or not the universe began through God is insoluble from an empirical perspective.
At that point it's a question of reason, and to my mind the Kantian objections have not been sufficiently answered by anyone.
It's not a gap that God is filling, it's the other side, past the gap lol
God Of The Gaps
I swear this is just a stock objection from internet atheists because none of you use it correctly.
Sounds like a personal problem.
It’s the same reasoning and is just as susceptible to being eventually shown fatuous as all the other gaps people have tried to see god in.
Runs away from an argument like a scared chickenshit pretentious pseud
Kant believed in the validity of a priori knowledge too; sounds like you're only partaking in his thought on a posteriori knowledge.
More to the point, though, the God of the Five Ways is not a “god of the gaps” (that is, a god who exists only to explain what science can’t). Indeed, natural laws and forces require His action in order for them to exist, and He isn’t logically prevented from working through natural processes.
seen this before
Kant believed in the validity of a priori knowledge too
That's why I said, "it's a question of reason," (a question for reason, you get what I mean). Kant's (and incidentally Schopenhauer's) objections to the three arguments have not been resolved by any modern Thomist of whom I know.
Aquinas uses these arguments in a whole arsenal for proving his religion.
Except he's not. He was writing a handbook for priest.
So you don’t fully understand where energy and matter come from and are asserting that god must be behind it but I’m mistaken in pointing this out because this article has made the same huge assumption about the origin of matter and energy that you have.
This line is key:
natural laws and forces require His action in order for them to exist
That’s an enormous assumption, not an argument. IF that assumption is true then you’re correct but I think it presupposes a lot of things that can’t be justified.
moot point really
oh okay, gotcha; that is interesting and fair.
Why would Aquinas be trying to prove his religion to the people put in charge of preaching it?
Exactly. No god necessary.
There can't be nothing.
As there is something, nothing isn't—evidently.
You can't have Nothing over there and Something here, that would give Nothing the property of boundary/length/depth. And it would so become a thing.
And so Spacetime (a something) is, and it was voidless, infinitely dense of what we call energy—the most fundamental of particles, if we can call it having separation, it's easier to comprehend the first Eternity of the universe as being a singular super-particle. "Then" the big bang happened (to us it would appear to be immediately).
The first principle, first "law", is that Nothing is impossible.
We can give Nothing an existence, and the universe Will, for arguments sake: The universe expands as there can't be nothing, it expands "faster and faster" as this fact is absolute, space is antithetical to nothing (that isn't). The universe expands on the same notion 'how can there be an edge of the universe' the Universe "agrees" so it expands infinitely.
Time is relative. There's nothing before the universe.
If the universe exists then who created the universe?
Hah! Checkmate fedoras!
People also seem unable to grasp that the universe expands inwardly. Imagine digging hole, it doesn't become taller or wider, just deeper—now imagine digging a hole inwardly; the Universe is the "white hole" astronomy once looked for. The reverse of a black hole is the universe.
TL;DR: the universe itself is the answer, not god.
Yes, but its still a shitty argument to use against there being a god.
holy fucking brainlet, the entire universe itself is contingent
why do you suppose that? As several posters have pointed out the ultimate cause needn't be some personal agent.
You poor fool, God doesn't need to be created, his existence is necessary.
Okay... so why does the universe need to be created?
To a god, but not to a separate god, as in it's a good argument against an "outside mover". I still believe in the possibility of a Bruno-god, or "willing" Arche. But it would be more like what the weirdo Mainländer said, God (the will) sacrificed "itself" for the universe. Or that the singular infinitely dense god "before" time (like an omega-black-hole containing everything in an infinitely singular presence) is now Pan (everything/everywhere) but now without a singular will.
A personal God is baby mythology.
Not to a god, but to a separate god . . .
philosophy is a dialectic
Through experience we realize that effects have causes. Logically, the universe must have a cause. This is just consistent with the laws we've observed within the universe. "God" which is un caused, is not within this universe, so we have no reason to say it is bound by causality. We don't understand God, sure, but it's conception maintains a logical consistency within our universe.
No god is outside of the universe and the begging point of creation, that does not need to be created.
But the universe is also not "within" the universe.
Are you saying the universe is outside the universe?
Why is crash course a show for school kids on Veeky Forums
Casuality only matters in the universe with big bang (I use 'with' as it's still going on). "Before" the big bang the universe was a singularity. WITHOUT spaceTIME. In the primordial singularity an eternity is the same as a Planck Time, everything never happens—yet all at once. There's no "before the universe".
using arguments based on a pre-Newtonian understanding of motion
the beginning point of creation, that does not need to be created.
The universe is the universe. Just because every part of a thing has some property doesn't mean the whole does.
The term motion is being used to describe the actualization of potential, or change which are ultimately philosophical concepts and are not reliant on material physics.
Nope the universe needs a creator because it's not perfect.
And even science will tell you there are more universes.
Also Ayan Rand is shit.
Lol bruh, look at this dude. Fucking numales.
TFW someone talks about the ontological argument and doesn't just skip to the S5 modal ontological argument. Fucking plebs
That's the guy withe Cheetos analogy about Chads fucking his wife?
the universe needs a creator because it's not perfect.
Oh, hey this first video is interesting.
wasent Aquinas French?
being so stupid that you can't seprerate the multiple definitions of motion
Unironically mentioning the Kalam cosmological argument in 2018
Even Aristotle considered this argument stupid, c'mon.
the entire universe itself is contingent
Pretty sure it isn't
It's not the Kalam argument.
Causality is an inherited principle. If one part of a system has a cause the induces an effect in it, i.e. a change in the system, the entire system was involved in the cause-effect relationship, even if parts of the system did not individually exhibit an effect.
There are multiple types of causality. There is causality in the typical sense, where moment one causes moment two, and there is instant causality, where there is a cause and effect relationship between two things in a single moment. For instance, when I stand on the ground, gravity keeps me from falling off the face of the earth. It's not that gravity exerted a force on me, and then a moment later I did not fall. Rather, A force is exerted on me which causes me not to fall, all in a single instant. Thus the universe can still have a cause, just not a cause before time existed.
And even then, causality may have nothing to do with time. We just don't have empirical evidence for such a thing.
Literally ever single one of his objections are entirely false and his counter arguments show that he didn't actually read what Aquinas actually wrote. This is fucking triggering me.
Being is not the Being of beings
Kant argues that existence is not a property that things possess. This refutes the ontological argument, but at the price of concluding that being with no properties (pure being) and nothing are the same thing (Hegel's point). This is such an absurd conclusion that most people reject it on its face, and rightfully so.
holy fucking brainlet
Was Hegel actually retarded? If being is not a property then a being with no properties is logically inconsistent in Kant's framework.
Who says that a being has to have properties. What's the difference between Kant's space with no objects and "nothing."
Kant argues that existence is not a property that things possess.
He argues that existence is not a property of the concepts of things themselves. The idea of a pyramid is not changed by saying, "a pyramid exists," the representation of the idea is merely considered hypostatized. The representation is in a different relation to the subject than in the case of an abstraction.
Things exist, but not by pure deductive necessity.
something can't come from nothi-
Vacuums aren't nothing.
Conflating metaphysics with physics.
Besides Aquinas' point makes the case that even if the universe always existed then there would still need to be an uncaused cause.
I love Vlogbrothers !! I feel so smart after watching and sharing their videos :DD
damn, he completely misunderstands what the arguments are.
Not that user but if something always existed could it be a self moved mover?