*blocks your atheism*

The First Way: Argument from Motion

1. Our senses prove that some things are in motion.
2. Things move when potential motion becomes actual motion.
3. Only an actual motion can convert a potential motion into an actual motion.
4. Nothing can be at once in both actuality and potentiality in the same respect (i.e., if both actual and potential, it is actual in one respect and potential in another).
5. Therefore nothing can move itself.
6. Therefore each thing in motion is moved by something else.
7. The sequence of motion cannot extend ad infinitum.
8. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

The Second Way: Argument from Efficient Causes

1. We perceive a series of efficient causes of things in the world.
2. Nothing exists prior to itself.
3. Therefore nothing [in the world of things we perceive] is the efficient cause of itself.
4. If a previous efficient cause does not exist, neither does the thing that results (the effect).
5. Therefore if the first thing in a series does not exist, nothing in the series exists.
6. If the series of efficient causes extends ad infinitum into the past, for then there would be no things existing now.
7. That is plainly false (i.e., there are things existing now that came about through efficient causes).
8. Therefore efficient causes do not extend ad infinitum into the past.
9. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.

cont...

Other urls found in this thread:

toughquestionsanswered.org/2011/09/12/have-aristotles-metaphysics-been-proven-wrong/
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

The Third Way: Argument from Possibility and Necessity (Reductio argument)

1. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, that come into being and go out of being i.e., contingent beings.
2. Assume that every being is a contingent being.
3. For each contingent being, there is a time it does not exist.
4. Therefore it is impossible for these always to exist.
5. Therefore there could have been a time when no things existed.
6. Therefore at that time there would have been nothing to bring the currently existing contingent beings into existence.
7. Therefore, nothing would be in existence now.
8. We have reached an absurd result from assuming that every being is a contingent being.
9. Therefore not every being is a contingent being.
10. Therefore some being exists of its own necessity, and does not receive its existence from another being, but rather causes them. This all men speak of as God.

The Fourth Way: Argument from Gradation of Being

1. There is a gradation to be found in things: some are better or worse than others.
2. Predications of degree require reference to the “uttermost” case (e.g., a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest).
3. The maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus.
4. Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.

The Fifth Way: Argument from Design

1. We see that natural bodies work toward some goal, and do not do so by chance.
2. Most natural things lack knowledge.
3. But as an arrow reaches its target because it is directed by an archer, what lacks intelligence achieves goals by being directed by something intelligence.
4. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.

fuck off nigga i am god suc k my dick

>and this everyone understands to be God.
Why can't there be more than one prime mover?

>nothing can move itself.
>but hold up forget that lemme tell you about the first mover
Don't post this trash ever again

Wait no that's an actually good question. Why does there only have to be one prime mover?

>He can’t undertsand the first mover is special
kek

>muh angels
God Thomas “behold a kike” aquinas was fucking retarded

because movement is

>Thomas Aquinas was retarded
Based on what?

Why even bother establishing rules if you're going to come up with arbitrary exceptions when it suits you?

>believed in angels, kike g*d
>5 arguments were not ironic

what

And who/what caused that cause you call divine intervention? And what caused the cause of the cause. I could go on forever...

>g*d
this sounds familiar

Oh, so you’re just shitposting

>cause of the cause.
nothing

Why can’t atheists into metaphysics?
>what caused God?
God is outside of time and causality

>I can explain rationally everything except this one part witch is comprehensible

Fuck off, shitposter

If he exists which is something these arguments try to prove but fail because they rely on you already accepting his existence to work cmon now

>haha dude you can’t disprove it due to its very nature but somehow I can prove it
Metaphysics is a two way street numbnuts

I'm ok with it being a matter of faith or it being possible rationally but you can't just abandon trying to use logic when it gets hard.

>god isn't exempt from my arbitrary misunderstanding of your "rules"

Why would he be? Why can't any other cause be exempt from the rules in the same way?

>Circular thinking: the post

>Only an actual motion can convert a potential motion into an actual motion.
incorrect
>Nothing exists prior to itself.
Everything already existed prior to itself
>Assume that every being is a contingent being.
Nothing is contingent
>There is a gradation to be found in things: some are better or worse than others.
semantics; concepts of better or worse are meaningless, there are no better or worse things
>We see that natural bodies work toward some goal, and do not do so by chance.
natural bodies work the opposite way and they do it by chance

How am I abandoning logic?

My post was to point out the absurdity of many “arguments” in this thread.

Taking Aristotelian metaphysics seriously is silly. It might have made sense in his time but not now

I was just pointing out the flaws in many of the questions/arguments in this thread.

What changed between now and then to invalidate the claim of a metaphysical world?

Why

Aristotelian metaphysics are not the only possible system of metaphysics.

Tell me, have you read Aristotle's metaphysics?

>applying the physical principles of our universe to a medium separate of it
This is your brain on religious rationalizations.
What happens(ed) "outside" our universe is unknowable and thus irrelevant. Even speculating about it makes you a brainlet on the grounds that you have 0 foundation to even lay your speculations upon.

>everything has to follow rules
>but mah supr speshul OC donut steel god doesn't bcz hes kool and will beat all my bullies in school
>evidence? what evidence?

Nope. I was just curious.

>unknowable
Somewhat
>irrelevant
No

Aristotle was essentially an empiricist, and he rested his thoughts on physics and metaphysics based on his physical observations.

In other words his metaphysics are what allow his physics to function.

However what Aristotle thought he observed in the natural world is quite at odds with what we observe with modern methods, his model is built from the ground up on a series of faulty assumptions.

AHAHAHAHAHahhahahahahha


Hooooly shit

Christcucks trying to read and apply Aristotle

I'm fucking dying

Can't even understand the unmoved mover, or rather perverted him to keep faith with their hebrew mythology

"first mover, put in motion by no other" lmao it doesn't move dipshit, it's unmoved and inspires other entities like cheese would inspire you christcuck rats

Seriously don't touch the Classics ever again and don't @ me you hebrew mythology fan boy brainlets

...

Like on an atomic level? What specifically is at odds?
Or, would Wikipedia or another source be a good place for me to learn more about the conflict between the two?

I'm not arguing, I'm laughing at hebrew mythology fan boys. These levels of cuckery are seldom seen in public.
If we want to discuss things of value, then let me tell you that Plato and Aristotle did nothing wrong

If been awhile but the best example I can think of his his understanding of motion, which is totally at odds with our modern understanding.

I googled a thing, and it mentioned that Aristotle’s experimental science ideas had be refuted, but not necessarily his metaphysical ideas, due to
>”the latter not being built on the former”

I mean could you post the link? granted I am going off my own reading but discussing Aristotle's metaphysics in particular requires you to reference his understanding of the physical world because he references it a lot when justifying things.

Aristotle's metaphysical ideas are rock solid in so far as he is in accordance with Plato (which is much of the way), and to the extent they differ it is grounds for debate. Either way Aristotle is miles ahead of any current era clown or 19th/20th century sophist.

...

Yeah, sorry
toughquestionsanswered.org/2011/09/12/have-aristotles-metaphysics-been-proven-wrong/

The article is partially correct; yes, Aristotle's metaphysics are as strong as ever. On the other hand... that has nothing to do with Christian metaphysics. Christianity and hebrew mythology in general is incompatible with the metaphysical teachings of Plato and Aristotle.

>Christianity and hebrew mythology in general is incompatible with the metaphysical teachings of Plato and Aristotle.
How so

>Everything can be observed to follow certain rules
>But these rules require an exception to start them
>This exception is called God
>Atheists literally cannot grasp this simple logic

I dont think a Christian apologetic blog is the most neutral or authoritative source on this issue, nor do I agree with the article

Terrible argument

I’d think it would be the best type of authority to use in this thread.
How so?

Unless he has a degree in philosophy I dont think so., and assuming he is a Thomist he would have a vested interest in defending Aristotle's metaphysics

>How so?
All he says is
>yes the natural sciences of the ancients pale compared to our modern understanding but it's not so for metaphysics.
He doesn't even layout the challenges that he says have not succeeded against ancient metaphysics.

Take the most fundamental, metaphysical axiom, as inherited from Parmenides: being. That principle encompasses all that is.

God is less than being, so Christians immediately run into problems. They go one of two ways:

The grave neo-platonist mistake (the most serious mistake ever made by mankind) is to say "well there's beyond-being" and then just make up random shit to justify your beliefs. In reality, all they do is slice "being" into two pieces ("being" and "beyond being"), and then use the NEW, limited definition of "being" to attack the metaphysical axiom.

However, it is just a semantic game. The "being" we spoke of still encompasses both their "being" and "beyond-being", and they are non-responsive. Their point is subordinate to being, and is actually just a perversion of the true teaching "the monad gives birth to the dyad".
The other line of attack is, "god is being", as though they are synonymous. That initially works, because if they want to call "being" by the term "god" we can still have meaningful discussion.

The obvious question is then, well who performs these miracles? What is this being that impregnates women, walks the earth, blows up cities, turns people into pillars of salt, etc? This avenue falls apart, because obviously the metaphysical axiom of "being" cannot account for the anthropomorphic hebrew god(s).


So, given Christian unwillingness to admit that his god is not the geatest, it is incompatible. There are other additional issues that will crop up even if he acknowledges this point, too.

What challenges HAVE refuted ancient metaphysics?
And the majority of the post seems to just be quoting Maritain, so the complete/better argument would most likely be in that book

Why else would he go out of his way to create the argument in defense of it? With the exception of bordom.
And everyone is going to have some bias with whatever they form an argument about, actual neutrality is impossible.

Because for a rule to be established it's necessary that the rule don't exist in the first place.

>This avenue falls apart, because obviously the metaphysical axiom of "being" cannot account for the anthropomorphic hebrew god(s).
How so?

>Why else would he go out of his way to create the argument in defense of it?

He's a Christian apologist, defending the faith from any possible attacks is kinda his job

>actual neutrality is impossible.

Sure, and if he had a degree in the subject or wrote in an academic style I might overlook my suspicion of an apologist blog but as far as I know he does not.

How convenient that the one thing you refuse to prove is exempt from needing to be proven.
I’m sure you have no vested interest in deeming God not needing to be proven.

You wouldn't deriving the traits of a being that is defined by not bound by the rules of our experienced reality by that very reality would you?

Because then we are all the anthropomorphic god, the table is the anthropomorphic god, the idea of "equal" is the anthropomorphic god, etc.

The metaphysical axiom was that principle of being. "Is", or "existence". An anthropomorphic god would be part of being in the sense that we all are. If that principle IS the god of the hebrews, then... we are all part of the god of the hebrews, and indeed the miracle itself is part of the god. Because we all exist, the miracle exists, the potential exists, it is all part of being.

So, Christians must then make a god within the god, who is born as Jesus. That is a separate issues, but Christians will never take that step because they will never make god inferior.

Further, I have met many christians who say that god is indivisible. If god is being, then how did the monad give birth to the dyad? Being has division, otherwise you and I could not have this discussion.

Can you derive a metaphysical system without any element of empiricism?

That was kind of my point.
The majority of the blogpost is just quoting a book by Jacques Maritain, who was a philosopher, or is recognized as a philosopher.

Side note, a lot of Christian apologetics appear to have been agnostic at some point in their life. It would make sense, since a lot of agnostics claim logic to be what made them agnostics, and Christian apologetics is based in/on logic.

Couldn’t you do that if the being interacted with our reality? It wouldn’t necessarily be bound by the reality by interacting with it.

Why would monad giving birth to dyad Be division of the monad? If the monad was the first being, and not just the totality of all beings?

God is a spirit, not "anthropomorphic" though. God the Father has no physical form.

And those quotes do not hold up. Sure modern scientific advances in no way discredit all of classical philosophy and metaphysics, but we are dealing specially with Aristotle, who grounded his metaphysics in empiricism.

>Couldn’t you do that if the being interacted with our reality?
Runs into the same problem, the only way you get around that is having its existence as an axiom or relying on revelation alone.

>It wouldn’t necessarily be bound by the reality by interacting with it.
Which is a problem when you want to use the regularity of this reality to prove the existence of the unbound being. Either you have to start getting arbitrarily selective in your analogies and what you allow to be valid or you devalue the role played by what goes on in this reality.

If we have an axiom of: Sentient/Entities that reside in the metaphysical world are able to interact with the physical world, but the physical world cannot (physically/empirically) interact with the metaphysical world.
Would that be a non-arbitrary rule? Evidence to support the axiom would be miracles/supernatural events.

>Would that be a non-arbitrary rule?
At that limited level it would be axiomatic, the arbitraryness would only become an issue when you start deriving what type of place and what type of beings inhabit it - which is what most people are focused on doing.

Imagine the kind of issues you would get if the beings from that metaphysical world attempted to derive the traits of the physical world based on their reality.

>Evidence to support the axiom would be miracles/supernatural events.
That brings its own difficulties, but in general a good enough way of establishing a divine or at least higher being.

I interpreted the metaphysical world as existing without matter.
Additionally, it sounds like you’re describing the physical and metaphysical as parallel realities/worlds. Which is possible. I see them as inferior and superior. The metaphysical being above the physical.

The monad is "all", it is the principle of "is" and therefore encompasses everything. That is the most fundamental point of all, and literally cannot be denied. One can claim ignorance, one can babble incoherently, but nobody can deny the truth handed down to us from the dread Parmenides.


As for "why" the monad gave birth to the dyad, first I must say that it is not a chronological point. It is a point of hierarchy.

We can approach the axiom in a few ways. To begin with, "why" isn't applicable where it is a metaphysical axiom (there is no moral justification, or temporal causation or thought process).

The other approach is to ask, how do we know about it. We know it less than we know the monad, because the monad is undeniable.

The dyad is possible to deny, because we could stop at the monad and deny all else. One would simply deny division and claim all is one; the act of making the argument is reliant on the dyad, so it is stupid.

I am actually tempted to say the dyad is also impossible to deny, for how can "denial" occur without it, but at any rate the speaker is simply positing something simple and limited, and pretending to deny the very conversation and himself. The speaker might just seize up and be like a rock if he is pressed to hard.


anthropomorphic in the sense that this entity seems to have intent, converses with humans, carries out actions, and at one point takes a physical, humanoid form and walks the Earth.

I don't mean to define the christian god, they are welcome to define him how they please. The actions christians attribute to him cannot be attributed to the metaphysical axiom of being, though, for the reasons given.

>I interpreted the metaphysical world as existing without matter. Additionally, it sounds like you’re describing the physical and metaphysical as parallel realities/worlds

Doesnt the interaction between the Metaphysical and the Physical through miracles and the supernatural demonstrate this kind of separation?

>Which is possible.
How would one proove or disprove this?

I worded it wrong. Yes, parallel in the sense of existing alongside each other, but not parallel in the sense of them being equal to one another nor being similar.

>>which is possible.
>how would one prove or disprove this?
We currently do not have the means to prove or disprove. Since it can neither be proven nor disproven, I consider it possible.

>>This exception is called God>Atheists literally cannot grasp this simple logic

Becaus there is no justification for the exception and unlike you they understand reaaon, logic and the burden of proof.

What can be known of the Metaphysical realities traits or inhabitant(s)?

>We currently do not have the means to prove or disprove. Since it can neither be proven nor disproven, I consider it possible.
But how much weight should be placed on this understanding? Solipsism and the world being created last thursday are also in this category remember

>what can be known of them/their traits
Good question. I wouldn’t really even know where to start. Since the metaphysical exists without matter/physical representation, I have no idea what we could possibly out. Especially since the current evidence points to the interaction being a one way street.
>how much weight should be placed on this understanding
More than is placed on solipsism and last thursdayism, I would argue.
With solipsism and last thursdayism, there’s nothing to disprove them, but neither is the really evidence to support them.
The belief or understanding of the existence of a metaphysical world has (some) evidence in regards to the (incredibly rare) cases of true miracles/supernatural events.

>blablabla motion
>and this everyone understands to be God
Wow, mind blown

>Our senses prove that some things are in motion
>We perceive a series of efficient causes
>We find in nature
>found in things
>We see that natural bodies work toward some goal

That's Aquinas's point. There is no logical justification, so he's assuming that whatever causes anything beyond that is not bound by logic, i.e., omnipotent, i.e., God.

So he didn't demonstrate anything, then

>creates deterministic universe
>b-but you have a free will haha

I've never understood why an infinite chain of causes is contradictory.
Can someone explain?

double infinity is beyond our capability to understnad

>Especially since the current evidence points to the interaction being a one way street.
How would you distinguish between metaphysical interaction and just a hyper complex material one?

>but neither is the really evidence to support them.
Kind of like Aqunias arguments. Likewise when it comes to the Last Thursday argument you could hold that it is demonstrated via revelation - which mind you is also the source of most miracles.

>The sequence of motion cannot extend ad infinitum.
Except that it can.

And this nonsense is why philosophy is no longer relevant to the modern world. All the fancy arguments in the world will not make a deity or deities exist, nor will it compensate for a lack of verifiable evidence for the existence of a deity or deities.

By philosophy I obviously am referring to religious philosophy here, and religious apologetics in particular.

only one chain of causality.

Doesn't look convincing to me.
>8. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.
>Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.
So, he has to invent some creature that doesn't obey any physical laws to explain how universe works. But if he goes there, everything is just pure speculation. Why the fuck does it have to be a hebrew god named YHWH? It could be Zeus or Ra, or the primeval cow Audumbla, or several gods working together, or a god who is already dead, or or no god at all and just some mechanism of reality that we cannot comprehend or don't know about yet. If he is talking about something beyond all rules of reality, it's all just making stuff up and speculation.
It's a shitty argument for a personal god and a complete non-argument for a specifically Christian God. Thomas just thought it was good because everyone around him (Catholics, Orthodox, Jews, Muslims) worshipped the same semitic creator deity, so he just assumed it was the only candidate for the prime mover there was.

>The metaphysical axiom was that principle of being. "Is", or "existence". An anthropomorphic god would be part of being in the sense that we all are. If that principle IS the god of the hebrews, then... we are all part of the god of the hebrews, and indeed the miracle itself is part of the god. Because we all exist, the miracle exists, the potential exists, it is all part of being.

I recommend you read Hegel...

>So, Christians must then make a god within the god, who is born as Jesus. That is a separate issues, but Christians will never take that step because they will never make god inferior.

Coming from a neo-platonistic tradition Jesus will not be made a god withing God. He is the translation of God within the world. It's like you try to be as dumb as possible by not understanding what one ousia and three hypostasis means.

>The obvious question is then, well who performs these miracles? What is this being that impregnates women, walks the earth, blows up cities, turns people into pillars of salt, etc? This avenue falls apart, because obviously the metaphysical axiom of "being" cannot account for the anthropomorphic hebrew god(s).

Although you mocked neo-platonism your criticism sure sounds as if it came from a pagan neo-platonist.

Bullshit, it assumes nothing can come of nothing and nothing could have existed for eternity, then solves this problem with entity that either existed for eternty or popped out of nowhere.

>1st
Only works within framework of classical physics, we've moved past that.
>4th
Total nonsense
>5th
Anthropocentric

>God
>Anthropomorphic

>Jesus is not God.
>God does not have feelings and talks to people.

The true way: Argument of cuckold
Don't ever question me or my wife's son again. She wouldn't ever sleep with someone else, it was god that put that baby there.
Anyone who believes in Joesph's wife's son is actually a CuckedKike lover. You actually cannot defend this.

>But if he goes there, everything is just pure speculation. Why the fuck does it have to be a hebrew god named YHWH?

Aquinas conceded that his ways didn't prove the Christian God in particular.

But he did. His argument from causality is unrefined, but it becomes better if you understand it in logical terms (as in, "if A, then B" instead of "this rock began rolling because I kicked it"). If the existence of anything LOGICALLY necessistates the existence of something else, and a LOGICAL chain can't regress forever, then it needs to have a starting point, which Aquinas calls God (but could have called anything else as the user in said; the point of the argument is to prove the logical necessity of a starting point to even think of existing things, not to sufficiently describe the nature of this starting point).