God explains the first cause

>God explains the first cause
>God always existed and had no first cause

Why do religious people ever attempt logical justifications?

Just admit you believe in a work of fiction because it's comforting.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmoved_mover
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendental_argument_for_the_existence_of_God
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

The notion of always does not apply to a transcendental being above time.

This is the worst counter-argument in the history of counter-arguments.

>"Because there cannot be an infinite regression of causes and effects, there must be a First Cause."

"Yeah okay but happened before that aye?"

Its fucking retarded. If God had something that came before Him, he wouldn't be the FIrst Cause, something else would be.

A much better counter-argument is "Why is the First Cause sentient? Why is the First Cause an intelligent being? Why identify the First Cause with the specific Deity of your particular religion? How do you go from 'Causality demands a Beginning' to Yahweh?'

This argument basically amounts to saying 'What happened before that which had nothing before it?" which is a contradiction in terms.

Fuck.

But that's unfalsifiable.

Again, why do you try to use logic?
Just admit that you like high fantasy.

Why is it so important that everyone believes the same thing you do?

Explain the first cause naturally.

Hell while we're at it Mr Retard [can I call you Re for short, or maybe just Tard?] here's an even better counter-argument so you can not make this horrible mistake in the future.

Why accept the premises in the first place? Why can't there be an infinite regression? What is time is cyclical?

Causality as a concept is entirely established empirically, there is no necessary logical relation between effects and their causes, the ideas remain distinct and are only noted to be linked through observation, so why accept Causality as a universal concept to begin with?

There are so many different angles of attack on the First Cause argument and yet for some reason complete imbeciles CONTINUE to miss the point of the argument and ask "What preceded the Unpreceded?" and act like they're being clever.

Because religion is superfluous to life, and magical thinking is one step away from brain problems.

muh dik muthaphukka

Because logical deduction is flawed.
Remind me of what the Tortoise spake to Achilles

Now respond to this
>"Why is the First Cause sentient? Why is the First Cause an intelligent being? Why identify the First Cause with the specific Deity of your particular religion? How do you go from 'Causality demands a Beginning' to Yahweh?'

>God of the gaps
you tried

Both of those are me. I posted both because there are legitimate ways of attacking the Cosmological Argument, but retards like OP continue to attack it in the most asinine fashion imaginable, acting like the arguments are delusion when he clearly doesn't even understand them enough to criticize them.

What caused the beginning of existence then, smart guy? Are you going to enlighten us to an unanswerable question?

Is this bait or do you not understand that atheism is admitting that we don't know things.

...

>A much better counter-argument is "Why is the First Cause sentient?
^This. I never understood why anyone would believe a causeless super-context for reality would be a thinking entity with ideas / goals when everything we know about mental activity tells us it's the product of physical brains.

That's not the evidence for God.
Saying that the transcendental nature of God cannot be true is disproven by the inability of Logic to solve the infinite regression.
A God above time would be no more limited by time than you would be by the limits of 2-Dimensional space.
God does not exist before, because before is a precept that does not apply to anything above time.

What's to understand though, really?

The only reaonable way to justify belief is admitting that you took a leap of faith.
There is no logical explantion for God.

But we're still at square one! Where is the evidence that the first cause is sentient?

wtf I hate atheism now

Religion has nothing to do with God. Just because some religions use the God as their foundation and mythology does not invalidate the God. There are many religions unreliant on the God, ones that worship various aspects of nature or do not believe in gods at all, like atheistic Buddhism

Not him, but I'm not uncomfortable at all admitting said leap of faith. I was taught growing up that our belief in the unprovable is what makes us Christian.

Whoever tries to justify God logically is retarded, there is no logic, He just is.

I was arguing pro religion fyi

You're thinking of deism/agnosticism. Atheism means disbelief of God. If you admit that you "don't know things" surely that leaves the possibility of a higher power.

The God is above Sentience.
Sentience is a physiological process of transmission, requiring a mechanism to operate. God would not require a mechanism to operate.

So hows senior year going? Did you realize that everyone is different and will believe different things regardless of what you say? Did you realize that trying to use logic to disprove religion is retarded? Did you realize you're on your way to becoming a facist?

dude semantics lmao
You knew what I meant, pal. Context clues.

Ik I replied to everyone

Why

No, because you're lumping in conflating agnosticism with Atheism and confusing that mongrel with Anti-Religiosity

I think the idea is more that god is about as real as Santa.

Because fuck you that's why

Who hurt you

Huge, and I mean HUGE black members are inside my gaping asshole.

What was the point in God creating a form of thinking that required billions of years of evolution to get a physical brain that could generate it if he already had a way of thinking available that existed without any physical dependencies?

>>God explains the first cause
>>God always existed and had no first cause
God is the first cause you moron

Proof?

Genesis. If you believe in God you believe that he is the First. If you want something more secular
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument

You're being held back by your Abrahamic preconceptions.
1) The notion that the Universe was purposefully "Created" by the Deity
2) That Humanity was directly conceived by the deity
3) That without humanity, there is no reason
There is cause and consequence with and without what we perceive as consciousness.

Not proof.
A conversation starter at best.

You're a 20 year old living on a tiny primitive rock in the middle of infinite space. How do you know if a greater power is real or not? No human even slightly understands the universe. Your rejection to the notion of a demiurge is solely rooted to the fact that you disbelieve in man-made manuscript.

>You're being held back by your Abrahamic preconceptions.
Nope. I gave you a perfectly good description of a causeless, mindless super-context for reality that isn't at all Abrahamic. The Abrahamic stuff is what I ruled out, just like you've ruled it out.

>No human even slightly understands the universe.
That's a self-refuting statement. If it were true you wouldn't be qualified to know it.

>You're a 20 year old
Proofs????

Is proof
You are just too much of a brainlet to understand. You've probably never even heard of Aquinas until just now.

>Is proof
You've not proven that God exists.

I didn't. Aquinas did via a secular methodology. If you want to just compete a priori assertion then I can just keep saying
>God is real
Why you keep saying
>God is not real
Ad infinitum. Meanwhile you have basically just conceded that God, under Christian beliefs, is the First. Therefore the OP is null and void and you are asserting nothing

>Aquinas did via a secular methodology
I don't think you understand what the word "proof" means.

Ultimately, one can only say that both reason and science currently fail to explain the reality we experience. This in itself is not proof of a Deity, but it does evince that there's yet more to reality than we can yet, or may ever, be able to experience. I agree that one should not suppose the existence of a Supernatural being, but I also disagree that any God would be supernatural.
We may be ultimately unable to interact with true reality because of the physical limitations of our mechanism.

>god of the gaps
damn...

>When he didn't read the post

I don't think you do either. He has logically proved God a posteriori. You seem to think there is nothing a priori and confuse your opinions as being inherently truthful.

Who are you quoting?

Newfag

>He has logically proved God a posteriori
No?
There is no proof that God exists. You know this.

Yes?
There is proof that God exists. You know this.

>There is proof that God exists.
Then produce it.

>That's a self-refuting statement
It actually isn't, at all. Humanity (that we can comprehend) is nothing compared to the entirety of the universe. Your own statement is self-refuting, due to the fact that if all knowledge were available to humanity, the discussion wouldn't need to exist in the first place.

I did.

No?
Aquinas's five ways don't prove that God exists.

Yes?
Aquinas' Five Points does prove that God Exists.

>if all knowledge were available to humanity
No. You claimed you know that "no human even slightly understands the universe." Disputing that claim isn't the same thing as claiming "all knowledge is available." It's not an all or nothing proposition. You can understand a lot about something without knowing everything about it. Just because we don't have knowledge of what's going on in every single nanometer of the universe doesn't mean we don't know in broad strokes how great expanses of the universe operate via physics for example.

nah
They are all either not as good as he thinks they are (they don't prove god, they merely show thst we don't know the ultimate cause) or they have been straight up answered by science.

Nah
Those are all a priori assertions once again. You aren't actually arguing against Aquinas or other cosmological arguments for the existence of God you are just saying "I choose not the believe this"

Also to further clarify why your original claim is self-refuting, you claimed to know we don't even slightly understand the universe, but you would need to slightly understand the universe to know whether or not we slightly understand it. If you don't even slightly understand it then you wouldn't have any understanding of whether or not you understood it.

>You claimed you know that "no human even slightly understands the universe."
Which is a perfectly justifiable claim. Your only argument to the contrary seems to be 'we do know some stuff'. Obviously the greatest academics and scientists have understanding to how a fair deal of physics work relating to our universe, but not a single one of them will claim to even slightly know everything. Not even close. Experts in any field basically never claim to know everything. Again, if humans did truly have omniscience there would be no need for this conversation. It's not even close. Many of the "hard questions" are still open, on top of everything else that can possibly be learned, discovered, or understood.

We still have not moved past the fact that his arguments don't prove that God exists.

>know everything
You're doing it again. Not knowing everything isn't your original claim. There's a massive difference between not even slightly understanding something vs. not knowing everything about something.

humanity =/= universe
Already went through this.

I never claimed humanity is the universe.

I know, you are stubborn in your a prior beliefs and refuse to understand the arguments of others. You haven't even given me ye old "but what if the world isn't real, breh?" argument yet.

Also:
>if humans did truly have omniscience
Where are you getting this from? Nobody has claimed omniscience. This is the most ridiculous strawman I've ever seen.

Do you or do you not think that Aquinas has literally proved that God exists?

Have you or have you not presented an argument against Aquinas' assertions yet?

Memory problems I see.

My assertion is that he merely proved thag we don't know the first cause.
There isn't even an attempt to prove anything more than that.
He seems to think that that alone is a slam dunk case for god.

>My assertion is that he merely proved thag we don't know the first cause.
... Are you serious? His entire argument on contingency is for existence being real, as a given, a contingent being must exist. I see you have memory problems as well, what did you think I meant by saying that God is the First? This an argument of casuality that stems from Aristotle.

>as a given, a contingent being must exist.
This doesn't follow though.

Stupid stupid stupid or simpleton simpleton simpleton.
"Woe to those who quarrel with their Maker, those who are nothing but potsherds among the potsherds on the ground. Does the clay say to the potter, 'What are you making?' Does your work say, 'The potter has no hands'?

Not seeing any proof.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmoved_mover

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendental_argument_for_the_existence_of_God
You don't need "proof"

An idea by a guy who hadn't even figured out buoyancy is not proof.

You are ignorant of wisdom

Proof?

HELLO, JEW; I SEE YOU.

STOP SPAMMING YOUR SUBVERSIVE VENOM ON THE BOARDS OF THIS WEBSITE; JUST SHRINK BACK INTO YOUR HOLE, SUBHUMAN.

*Does not make it inherently make it false
You forgot that add in with your ad hominem.

>Does not make it inherently make it false
Of course not, that's thr whole point. Religion is unfalsifiable. That is distinct from proof though.
Aquinas did not prove that God exists.
He put forth a few theories.

Did you read my post, you motherfucker?
Also, you don't need to know about buoyancy to deduce that if all actions require cause, then there must either be an infinite series of causes, or a cause without a cause.

>Religion is unfalsifiable.
No, fundamentally no.

But why god, why not some alien civilization that created this universe in a lab?

sigh go on

You don't even know the theories or even attempt to discuss them and you are accusing religion of being unfalsifiable? Lol , fedora cringe at it's highest peak

>Sigh
>>>/leddit/
Do you just know nothing about theology at all even? Religion has never been unfalsifiable.

You seem so assured in your correctness and yet the closest thing to proof you've produced is a guy who thinks that an unknown prime mover must be god.

And yet there is,no scientific proof (read: proof) of God, and the crux of belief is the "leap of faith".

Leap of faith is not the crux of Christianity.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendental_argument_for_the_existence_of_God

That's not an ultimate cause. Something created those aliens. Aristotle obviously doesn't say it's God, he just says it's whatever it is.

>He's just reading the first paragraph of the wiki page and rephrasing parts of the paragraph in an ad hominem manner that asserts his own position is inherently correct and to think otherwise is laughable
Read through the damn wiki article

That's not proof by your own admission.
see
>You don't need "proof"

>No refutation
Why can't you be like this guy
Who admits that it's not necessarily god.