Mfw an athiest thinks there's actually any argument against God when Aquinas literally fucking proved God in the Summa

Well aren't you a dumb dummy dum dum, huh? Huh?

I'm a theist, but I haven't read Aquinas. What is the proof that he uses?

Atheists are literally getting BTFO on Veeky Forums right now.

1) God by nature
2) Thus by Nature, God

do we just have the shit theists on Veeky Forums then?

>circular logic

More like he proved panpsychism.

You're not still right, you're claiming Aquinas is right but haven't actually explained why.

The second way for instance doesn't get off the ground unless we can find examples of things that "come into existence". I see no reason to accept any premises about the nature of things coming into existence, as we have never observed an example of something coming into existence.

Any "object" or "thing" which appears to have come into existence is composed of material substance, but it is known empirically that the material substance that composes this object or thing was there to begin with. So actually nothing has come into existence, we've just seen pre-existing material be reorganized.

Secondly, it's not impossible for a chain of causes to go on to infinity.

the burden of proof is on you for making claims such as

>>>mfw an athiest thinks there's actually any argument against God when Aquinas literally fucking proved God in the Summa

Newton blew the fuck out of Aquinas.

not him, but i imagine the problem with that is "where did matter come from then?"

Nowhere. It always existed.

Sorry, but that isn't how spirituality works. Matter starts and ends with God, everything that exists is a literal result of a relative thought process of God. This is compared to you thinking of something and have it existing, God is the relation of your soul and body relating to itself if you will. Without it, your willpower is nothing.

sorry, but that's not an argument

I don't think I have to have an answer to that question, and I can criticize people who claim to have an answer to that question by saying that they have no real basis for their answer. Why should I or anyone else have to attempt an answer at a question about the details of something we don't even know occurred (in this case, the genesis of matter)?

>stumped
>i don't have to answer that

ok. aquinas wins

We're dealing with the tangible. Spirituality doesn't come into play. This is non-sequiturial word salad.

>I can't explain how something happened so that means god did it
What an excellent argument.

What I've said is the case. Everything that exists materially is fundamentally likened to a 'thought process' for God. All physical objects are essentially in God's realm.

>All physical objects are essentially in God's dream.

ftfy

Word
fucking
salad
All you've done is baselessly assert your position. Provide an argument please.

proofs?

spirit doesn't exist

call it whatever you want
will exists.

There's no reason to seperate will from body.

Okay, let's start from here.
>Will exists.
Define "will", specifically in reference to matter. What role does "will" play in matter, and what would we see if this were not the case?

It is the will of grass to do the will of cattle to do the will of farmers to do the will of slaughterhouses to do the will of money to do the will of consumers to do the will of their belly which fertilizes the grass.

Have you read The Holy Bible?

Hoe about the Koran?

The Tao Te Ching?

If anything, a simple glean from any of these texts will tell you not only is God real, but he has performed acts on this very Earth to make it clear to the people thst he is real. To walk around claiming that only 'some religions' exist or only 'some truths' are relevant to your understanding is what you want. You want a lab or scientific result proving that God exists, but if God did that there would be no point in faith, the game would be over. Let me put it this way, if you had read any of these texts you would know that proofs come to each individual in their lives. They can either ignore the proofs of God, or not ignore the proofs of God. You are tried at the end of your life for two things

1) What have you done on this Earth
2) Did your ground yourself saliently in God?

Have you read LOTR?

How about Harry Potter?

The Discworld series?

If anything, a simple glean from any of these texts will tell you not only are wizards real, but they have performed acts on this very Earth to make it clear to the people thst they are real.

>it's a "stubborn reductionist conceptualizes all religion using the same retarded logic as a religious fundamentalist would and then has the gall to criticism religious fundamentalists" episode

Fuck off back to where you came f/r/om

Slow your roll there, sparky. I am making fun of him because he's using religious texts as evidence of god's existence. A book proves absolutely nothing. Anyone can write anything down, and many cult leaders have proved that people will believe anything if it's presented in the right way, so a book having a following means nothing as well.

>believers even considering arguments

Why try to argue with a close-minded person?

rekt

So in this case, we are taking "will" not as a mental process, but whichever actions the subject in question is taking. Okay. But, then, if it is the "will" of grass to be fed upon by cattle, why do they contain secondary compounds designed to deter herbivore. that the cow must overcome in order to feed?

I don't believe the Tao te Ching describes miraculous acts.

The problem my friend is that science is particularly falsifiable. We have thought of the idea of a geocentric universe for thousands of years and this was proven wrong. You acting like there's no evidence for a deluge or lack of evolution is bullshit. There is. On top of that, there's even evidence that perception effects reality. Clearly willpower, centered in God, the creator means something.

What's more remarkable is you ignore one simple fact. That progress in science has direction. And if you want to find the absence of God in your reality, like Darwin, you will find it. People are driven to prove things. If you are God's creation, you will be sent to hell for obeying a direct line of scientific knowledge without thinking of the spiritual implications. Life is a trial.

People have proofs. Yours have been presented to you, this much I know. It is the same for all.

It does describe a flood.

>You acting like there's no evidence for a deluge or lack of evolution is bullshit.
What evidence is there for the worldwide flood? What evidence is there that evolution is broadly-speaking incorrect?

You cant even prove Aristotelian metaphysics so how are you going to prove something based on them?

ironically your response isn't logical refutation.

It has already been presented multiple times. It's the reason intellectuals like Ken Ham or Jordan Peterson still exist, because they believe in the idea of God and the truth of his word. You are an idiot, and are ignoring whats staring at you right in the face.

That isn't an answer. What evidence is there? Be specific.

Earth covered in layers of dried mud.

Fossil record; mud settling and killing creatures living on the bottom of the ocean, perfectly preserving their skeletons in a quick death, again dried in layers of hardened mud.

Sedimentary rock. Sediment. Flood.

No major river delta on earth has more accumulated silt than would be expected after a worldwide flood about 4600 years ago.

It's not the evidence that's lacking; it's your biased worldview that can't make sense of the evidence.

Every ancient civilization writes of a global flood. It was an ELE. People pay attention to ELEs.

>worshiping a Jew and his magic dad

>It's the reason intellectuals like Ken Ham

You're right. I must go to my local church at once. You've convinced me of the existence of God and his son Jesus. Good job.

You must go to Jesus on bended knee.

???

well shit, i guess it must have been yahwey

that's not an argument

>Earth covered in layers of dried mud.
Yes, because various parts of the earth have been at one point or another in an environment encouraging mud deposition. This is a fairly common depositional environment and there are only so many types of sediment (especially when you're as non-specific as "mud" without mentioning grainsizes or structures). You would have to prove that these layers were deposited at the same time,

>Fossil record; mud settling and killing creatures living on the bottom of the ocean, perfectly preserving their skeletons in a quick death, again dried in layers of hardened mud.
The nature of all fossils requires burial at or near the time of death, and again mud is common in all deep-water environments today, without any global flood. For example, turbidity currents off of the continental shelf act like underwater mudslides, and deposit a lot of sediment (including mud) very quickly in an environment where organisms live. Again, you would need to show some specific timeframe where this was occurring much more than usual, and worldwide, and only to organisms living in the one timeframe.

>Sedimentary rock. Sediment. Flood.
I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Sediment is deposited by processes aside from flooding, such as wind in the desert, and we ought to see specific worldwide erosional structures if the flood was really worldwide and sudden. (No, that's not how the Grand Canyon formed.)

>No major river delta on earth has more accumulated silt than would be expected after a worldwide flood about 4600 years ago.
I doubt the figure, but yes, erosion and lithification is common, and deltas cycle/water follows a path of less resistance when sediment accumulates, rather than emptying into the same one constantly.

And every ancient civilization also lived near or with access to fresh running water, and the structures that provide it have the tendency to flood. These were catastrophic events for each individual civilization, which were later mythologized into something greater, the way the raid on Troy was expanded into the epic cycle. We would need to see specific evidence of a sudden, worldwide flood to see these as anything other than stories.

You see the truth through your naturalist and empiricism blacked out glasses.

If you were a curious person, you would look at the explosion of Mt. St. Helen's in the 1980's and see how that one explosion (there were thousands related to the Flood) created stratified sedimentary rock in a matter of months.

It's easy to see they were deposited at the same time. They're smooth and fit together perfectly. No burrow holes, no marring, nothing but smooth dried layers of mud, some of which have polystrate fossils protruding through more than a dozen layers. A fact your worldview has to ignore, while mine does not.

The timeframe, worldwide, was about 4600 years ago, not coincidentally the age of the oldest tree on earth that has actually been aged via tree rings, and not carbon dating.

Global Flood ---> global sediment.

No accumulated silt is more than 4600 years worth, anywhere on earth. The exact time of the Flood.

Sea creatures fossilized in the Flood are found on the tops of mountains.

You will not see what your mind cannot accept.

You will not see what you do not want to see.

Thats because the earths crust expands and contracts as plate push against each other. So parts of what was the sea floor get pushed up into mountains

You really shouldn't get your scientific knowledge from AnswersInGenesis.

> We have thought of the idea of a geocentric universe for thousands of years and this was proven wrong.
this common line of reasoning used to dismiss science is dogshit. you can hold doubts, but to simply dismiss the evidence that's used to support modern scientific theory (specifically evolution) without providing any contradictory evidence shows how fucking deluded you are.
>You acting like there's no evidence for a deluge
wew lad. maybe you'd like to present us with some of this evidence? bonus points if it isn't something that's been debunked countless times.
>or lack of evolution is bullshit.
an organism which is better suited to survival will live longer, and therefore have more offspring. mutations in the genetic code cause new variation in organisms. over large periods of time, these factors cause speciation. all of this is supported by the fossil record. what parts of this do you disagree with?
>there's even evidence that perception effects reality.
your perception is reality dog.
>Clearly willpower, centered in God, the creator means something.
that's not clear at all. you can't just say "it's clear that x" and expect people to go with it. you have to demonstrate that your premise is true.
>if you want to find the absence of God in your reality, like Darwin, you will find it.
this means literally nothing, and does nothing to strengthen your point, as it is equally applicaple in the reverse. if you want to have a god, you'll find a reason to believe. also darwin was a christian. simpleton.
>If you are God's creation, you will be sent to hell for obeying a direct line of scientific knowledge without thinking of the spiritual implications.
firstly, you've yet to even demonstrate that there is such a thing as a spirit. secondly, fuck your god if he wants me to burn for being a reasonable person and disbelieving the unbelievable.
>People have proofs.
no they don't. as evidenced by how you've yet to give a shred of proof to support your position.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Ways_(Aquinas)

1. Everything changes. All change is caused by something else. But it's impossible to list a cause for every change, that leads to infinite regression. So there must be something that is able to cause change without needed to be changed itself. That is God.

2. Similar to 1. Everything has a cause. You can trace back to chain of cause and effect right back to the beginning of the universe. But you can't have infinite regression so there must have been a very first cause in the chain of cause and effect. That is God.

3. All things that exist can theoretically also not exist. Since we do exist there must be a necessary being whose existence is contingent on nothing else. That is God.

4. Everything is on a continuum from 'most' to 'least'. We know some people are 'more good' and some people are 'less good' so there must be an ultimate standard of goodness that all else is judged against. That is God.

5. Things behave as if they have a purpose. All things have a 'final cause' that is, the purpose of their existence, they will naturally move towards accomplishing that cause during their existence, even if it is inanimate matter which seeks to clump with other inanimate matter and form objects. Something must have set that purpose into their very nature. That is God.

It all derives from Aristotelian philosophy, so you probably need to do a bit of reading on 'acts' and 'potentials' before it really clicks. From the perspective of the Aristotelian school of thought all the arguments make logical sense

I miss Corrie

>The second way for instance doesn't get off the ground unless we can find examples of things that "come into existence"
The universe. That was easy.

>Secondly, it's not impossible for a chain of causes to go on to infinity.
It actually is. Infinite regress is impossible. If it was possible we wouldn't be here.

>created stratified sedimentary rock in a matter of months.
Yes, volcanoes are incredibly useful in sedimentology for this specific reason, because they allow you to coordinate the fact that a given layer was deposited all at once, despite whatever other deformation occurred. But as far as I'm aware, volcanism did not precede the flood, so unfortunately this is not relevant.

>A fact your worldview has to ignore, while mine does not.
No I don't. Layers of can be disturbed and mixed very easily, especially if they are both unconsolidated and waterlogged. Flame structures are a well known example of this. Even lithified sedimentary rock can be disturbed by organisms that can create boreholes. These can be useful indicators of what direction was "up" during deposition, so I'm not sure why you believe they are ignored. Regardless, you still need to show how it can be proven that globally mud was deposited at the same time, by the same process, rather than the many processes we see today depositing mud occurring in many places across space and time.

>Global Flood ---> global sediment.
But then the same, continuous layer should be present everywhere. Where is it?

>The timeframe, worldwide, was about 4600 years ago, not coincidentally the age of the oldest tree on earth that has actually been aged via tree rings, and not carbon dating.
Carbon dating is calibrated using tree rings, and is only useful for a limited number of half lives. Further than that other dating methods like Potassium 40 are used, so I'm not sure I see your point.

>No accumulated silt is more than 4600 years worth, anywhere on earth.
If I'm understanding your objection, you want a process to deposit into the same basin for 5000 years, without erosion, without stopping or changing environments?

That is not evidence.

"No."

>All change is caused by something else.
Radioactive nuclei decay without an external trigger.

Except it rests on nonsensical and entirely subjective axioms and an aspect that is ultimately opinionative (particularly #5), and begs the question what is more perfect?

Plus, by this same logic, the perfect pizza must exist (even if God 'can't be known')- which is silly enough, but also begs the question - a perfect pizza by whose opinion?

It also assumes there is some instance of "true nothing" in existence, rather than it being a mere mental concept, and that causality is absolutely inviolable, both of which, as we know today, don't seem to be the case.

Even without the observations to contradict it, basic kindergarten logic, Descartes, and well, just about every other philosopher since Aquinas slammed this into the ground. Indeed, it was really just a perversion of Anselm's idea, which was well already disproved by other Christian philosophers well before then.

In Aristotelian theory the decay would be a 'power' of the radioactive nucleus and the change would be a result of that substance exerting it's power.

>But it's impossible to list a cause for every change
it's impossible for a human perhaps.
>So there must be something that is able to cause change without needed to be changed itself.
non sequitur. there's no inherent need for a beginning point.
>Everything has a cause.
are all of these just baseless, unprovable assertions? how can you know that everything has a cause?
>But you can't have infinite regression
why not?
>so there must have been a very first cause in the chain of cause and effect. That is God.
what if the first cause was completley inanimate? how can you call such a thing "god?"
>Since we do exist there must be a necessary being whose existence is contingent on nothing else.
no there musn't. our existence is not first predicated on the existence of some higher being. that's nonsense.
>We know some people are 'more good' and some people are 'less good'
no we don't. morality is a subjective human construct.
>so there must be an ultimate standard of goodness that all else is judged against. That is God.
why must the ultimate standard of goodness be god? why is god inherently good? what if god is really a right mean bastard? more baseless nonsense.
>Things behave as if they have a purpose.
no they don't. what is the purpose of an a comet flying alone through space?
> Something must have set that purpose into their very nature.
it's a pretty big leap to go from "things have a purpose" (which is already begging the question) to "that purpose id derived from god."

so in conclusion, fuck off with this utter tripe. it's not like i'm the first person to debunk this horseshit, and you know it.

What formed the nuclei? (I mean, ultimately, yeah, but try harder.)

Damn though.

see

>and that causality is absolutely inviolable, both of which, as we know today, don't seem to be the case
Causality is inviolable. Things in the universe can be perceived to happen at different times, even different locations, but the original cause of those things is always perceived the same by all parties. Causality is the reason light can only travel the speed it does, it's the fundamental underpinning law of reality.

This shit refutes itself. I can't believe this is heralded as the peak of theology.

There's a few more steps involved before you gotta resort to that.

>why not?
Because then there are an infinite number of events before you occurred. We're talking hard infinite here, the infinite of infinities, the infinite that contains all other infinities. Now think about it, if you regress back an infinite amount of time to track back all these cause and effects then try to go back to where you are, how much time has to pass before you exist? Infinite. If an infinite amount of time has to pass before you exist you will NEVER exist. Therefore your existence is predicated on the fact that there hasn't been an infinite amount of time and it can indeed be traced back to an original cause.

Why did it exert its "power" at time x instead of time y?

The moment and energy exchanges of protons and neutrons, but that doesn't solve the problem of observed and uncaused causes. Again, what was the trigger for one nuclei to decay right now and its neighbor to decay millions of years from now, despite them being otherwise identical?

You probably can't actually refute any of it though. People in the thread are trying their best and falling flat, mostly because they don't understand the implications. There are people trying to argue they don't exist to prove it wrong, for example.

All of these require existing belief in a supreme diety to make sense. As another who hasn't read Aquinas, this gives the impression he's working backwards; tailoring his data to match a favored conclusion.

Even if we don't know with certainty (and probably can't), all three major cosmological models predict causal violations, so no:
arxiv.org/pdf/1401.0167v1.pdf
...and they've been right so far about all the other unimaginable things we thought must be prevented by some yet-unknown mechanism, but nonetheless turned out to exist (such as black holes), so odds are pretty good that it happens, which is enough to toss into the pot to spoil philosophical certainty, at least.

>Why did it exert its "power" at time x instead of time y
Because that is it's 'nature'. The way things behave is fundamentally tied to the way things are.

>everything is contingent except for god because I say so

>I can't believe this is heralded as the peak of theology.
It isn't, even other Catholic philosophers hundreds of years dead have quashed it.

It is a notable hallmark in the evolution of primitive philosophy though. I mean, we still learn about Zeno's paradoxes and Empedocle's elements, despite the fact they are long resolved and abandoned.

So is the "nature" of every single example of a particular species of radioactive nuclei different? We can assign a half-life overall to some particular species, but for all of the nuclei to decay at different times (and perfectly randomly distributed across said time) implies different natures. So where is this nature?

You need to remember that the way we model the quantum world does not match how it is in reality. Particles are not literally waves of probability in reality, that's just how we model them to make sense of how they behave in reality.

By a series of laws that lead to conclusions predicting behavior which we observe - which also applies GR and the SGR your GPS runs on, which also predicts such violations. So, your point?

Shoot me with the arrow, Xeno. Infinite "events" or "moments" doesn't mean infinite time had to pass.

>So, your point
The point is they are only models, they are not reality. A ball being thrown in a perfect simulation of reality behaves like a ball in reality, but it is still not reality. The reality we experience is fundamentally different than the reality we can model and this is mainly because science only accounts for that quantitative, not qualitative. Things that cannot be measured or mathematically modelled fall through Sciences net because it isn't interested in anything that cannot be measured. Therefore it can't ever give us anywhere near a complete view of the reality we live in since we know by experience there are quantitative aspects to reality.

You can always view philosophy in some ways as a decay in thought, only if viewed from the aspect that popularized philosophers deny the existence of God. The former philosophy of accepting God and grounding your spirit in him is beautiful. God is obviously real, to say that the popularized notion of an agnostic philosopher was better than, say, Thomas Aquinas or Kierkegaard is just wrong. The arguments presented therein are life affirming, and enhancing even.