Proofs of God

>atheists
>reading

Ontological arguments work poorly in a Christian context, faith and all.

That is what atheists fail to understand; that it is not from ignorance or stupidity, but a great magnitude of faith and the will to handle the anxiety of said faith.

That being said, the average atheist / agnostic is a positivist and thereby would fail to comprehend the rational side of Christianity, precisely because it is rational rather than empirical.

They're best left to their own devices, it was their decision but not their fault that they fell down that path.

>theists
>reading

wait, i thought 'they run on faith' it was about aquinas' theses lol

We call what you're describing, "rationalization."

Atheists give a negative connotation to theistic rationalization, so I avoided the word entirely.

Rationalization in all contexts has a negative connotation. It's by definition grasping at straws to support a pet position. Sweet persecution complex though.

>I am in awe of Aquinas. He is probably one of the ten smartest people in all of history, from all over the world. He understood everything, and I think if you gave him something new he'd be able to understand that too. He really is a genius.

He just took two totally unrelated systems of belief and tried to make them fit together by brute force. Are you one of those faggots who just read to feel smart but never get to using their own intellect to produce original ideas?

Go back to lebbit, please.

Because

1. understanding Aristotelian metaphysics is a dry and hard task (which is also why Christians dont)

2. They are literally terrifying of having one of their foundational views stripped from them.

There beliefs literally have no grounds in reason.

lols , look inside yourself retard. realize that you are the answer you look for .

>not perceiving a God that theists all say they feel personally and couldn't imagine life without this
>unreasonable
Meanwhile you're sucking Aquinas' dick for positing something and calling it proof.

Oh no le bad website bogeyman

...

>hatposter

OO

>Meanwhile you're sucking Aquinas' dick for positing something and calling it proof.

If you think he just posited instead of logically demonstrated the necessity of it then you are literally being willingly ignorant.

I would say the opposite about you. Good show.

>m'hat

Aquinas was able to do what he did not because of his own genius but because through him spoke the Holy Spirit.

>In this moment I am euphoric, not because of my own intelligence, but because I am enlightened by the Holy Ghost

to be honest I haven't read it because I've never really heard of it. I guess that's what you get when you're a fagnostic and you're scared of confrontation.

>agnosticism
>I see no reason there would be a God but I'm afraid of getting yelled at

Do you have any criticism of his logic or metaphysics or not?

>something must have made the first change and set everything else off
>that something is necessarily singular and personal
He can't make that follow, no matter how hard he tries. That, and he flat-out says that assumptions like the world not always existing are matters of faith alone.

It's on the same tier as this:
>a dish fell and broke in the kitchen
>there was nobody in the kitchen
>it was a ghost
>it could not have been a mouse because I had the exterminator over last week and I trust him

>He can't make that follow, no matter how hard he tries

This is not a legit criticism, show how he doesn't or fuck off.

>He can't make that follow, no matter how hard he tries. That, and he flat-out says that assumptions like the world not always existing are matters of faith alone.

His point is that for things that change there is something unchanging required in order to avoid the problem of regress. Were did you read about his arguments?

>>a dish fell and broke in the kitchen
>there was nobody in the kitchen
>it was a ghost
>it could not have been a mouse because I had the exterminator over last week and I trust him

Aquinas argument on the unmoved mover are demonstrated by pure logic not faith. Take a look at the qualities ascribed to god in the first column and you will see that they aren't arbitrary or faith based but rest on logical necessity in the same way that you cannot have a square ciricle

If you are a Christian and you respond angrily with the hat joke you should stop. Not only is it worthless in proper argument and reduces the level of discussion, it's also impulsive and uncharitable on your part.

>Know this, my beloved brothers: let every person be quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger
James 1:19

>The heart of the righteous ponders how to answer, but the mouth of the wicked pours out evil things.
Proverbs 15:28

>they rest on logical necessity
Except no, they don't. They rest on Aquinas defining words in ways that aren't necessary to the rest of his case at all.

How is it pure logic when the man himself says that the five ways are only initial problems for people who will study the Summa? The Summa supposedly fleshes things out but it's even more faith-based. The five ways are only popular here because they appear to be logical proofs, but they were never intended as such.

>prove me a negative
See above. It's cute when Christians suddenly get all attached to hard logic when it looks like it might suit them.

it's a very poor analogy for the first cause principle

your situation supposes a reason, natural or supernatural, which is clearly not the ultimate reason since the universe existed before you put that dish on that table

I'm not asking you to prove a negative, I'm asking you to provide an actual argument against what has been put forth. Simply stating that it isn't the case is not an argument.

Stating a case for a something and then weaseling in attributes that suit you but aren't necessary to that something doing what you said it exists for isn't a case for those attributes, no matter how long you spend being rational beforehand about the existence of that something. What do you want me to do, green text the entire summa with footnotes?

A prime mover can exist as literally just a thing capable of causing an initial event. Such a mysterious thing is sufficient to satisfy Aquinas's case for a prime mover, yet he tries to claim it is necessarily a god.

>
How is it pure logic when the man himself says that the five ways are only initial problems for people who will study the Summa? The Summa supposedly fleshes things out but it's even more faith-based. The five ways are only popular here because they appear to be logical proofs, but they were never intended as such.

God's existence is seen as a 'preamble to the articles of faith (trinity, eucharist, incarnation, etc). That is, what is contained in scripture and sacred canon rests upon at least this foundation (obviously).

From article 2 of the same question:
>The existence of God and other like truths about God, which can be known by natural reason, are not articles of faith, but are preambles to the articles; for faith presupposes natural knowledge...Nevertheless, there is nothing to prevent a man, who cannot grasp a proof on Veeky Forums, from accepting, as a matter of faith, something which in itself is capable of being scientifically known and demonstrated.

>Except no, they don't. They rest on Aquinas defining words in ways that aren't necessary to the rest of his case at all.

Can you demonstrate this? His use of terms were coined by Aristotle who wasnt a christian.

>How is it pure logic when the man himself says that the five ways are only initial problems for people who will study the Summa?

Because the Summa was written based on his Christian views not Deist ones. His proof of Gods necessity was simply a preamble to his main goal of clarifying Christian doctrine with Aristotelian logic.

Again I ask you what works on Aquinas or Aristotles proof for God have you actually read?

>The Summa supposedly fleshes things out but it's even more faith-based. The five ways are only popular here because they appear to be logical proofs, but they were never intended as such.

None of his arguments for the necessity of God require any faith demonstrate how they "only appear" logical.

>A prime mover can exist as literally just a thing capable of causing an initial event. Such a mysterious thing is sufficient to satisfy Aquinas's case for a prime mover, yet he tries to claim it is necessarily a god.

Take a look at the second to bottom pannel in the first column .

The prime move logically has to be omnipotent, omniscient, non physical, eternal, immutable

Can you explain how logically the prime mover could lack these qualities?

The interesting question isn't if there's a prime mover or not, it's if any religion is justified.

what do you mean

Personally, I don't accept Aquinas' arguments because I'm gay.

Don't understand why people give up on Christianity because of what they cum to. I'm gay, and it's not the most important thing.

you can't fuck dudes and be Christian

Well you can, but you are going to hell.
You can't morality justify it. I fap, but doesn't mean I should.

That's what I mean. By gay I mean I have same-sex desires

But you don't let people ravage your anus?

yes

you'd have to be pretty desperate to accept Christian dogma on faith if it means you'll have to forego one of the most fulfilling parts of human life

Kek. Believe me there are few things less fulfilling than homosexuality that you can waste your time on. Active gay sex is almost entirely relegated to drunken hook ups at clubs, meeting up with guys online or whatever.

Not too different from promiscuous heterosexual fornication, but with homosexuality there's no productive outcome for your sexual escapades. Monogamy is the exception, because there's no possibility for children.

The noble idea or form or whatever you're thinking of has very little to do with the reality.

>sex is fufilling

it is though
well. maybe not for you

>He is probably one of the ten smartest people in all of history
christcucks, everyone

t. Muhammad auf Sweden, Emir of the Fedora

>Active gay sex is almost entirely relegated to drunken hook ups at clubs, meeting up with guys online or whatever.
that's cute

did it ever occur to you that gay people can form relationships and experience the unitive benefits of sex, even if it's not "open to procreation" or whatever other specious virtue ethics might be posited to argue that it's somehow metaphysically lesser than straight sex

found the virgin

nothing is fulfilling m8, you should have realized this by now

Did it ever occur to you that gay relationships may be intrinsically unhealthy? Our entire species - no, our evolutionarily line dating back millions of years - has revolved around the reproductive cycle of two separate types of organisms with unique characteristics and roles; male and female.

The dynamic of a relationship is essentially changed when the sexes of the participants is as well. The top/bottom dichotomy is almost universal among gay men, which seems uncomfortably similar to the dynamics of pederasty.

You can probably find some value in a gay relationship, but I don't know why you think it exceeds the value of religion.

>did it ever occur to you that gay people can form relationships and experience the unitive benefits of sex,
Yes, but I dismiss the possibility of a healthy homosexual long term relationship as something metaphysically impossible.
>even if it's not "open to procreation" or whatever other specious virtue ethics might be posited to argue that it's somehow metaphysically lesser than straight sex
It's completely biologically lesser because it serves no goal. It's intrinsically vapid. It cannot be not vapid.
It's fulfilling in marriage.

didn't know christfags could also be fedoras

>boo hoo muh life is an empty shell, muh nihilism etc

go outside in the sunshine matey.

hah all i'm saying it's impossible to ever be fulfilled... to be fulfilled is to die

it's 2016 how are you not an absurdist

>Did it ever occur to you that gay relationships may be intrinsically unhealthy?
And this is a claim that has never been substantiated except through wonky virtue ethics; there's nothing harmful about gay sex per se, unless you resort to some purely metaphysical definition of wellbeing that has no material correlation. Protestants, who don't have Aquinas to fall back on, usually resort to asinine statistical arguments about "gay culture"--and they don't take into account the fact that gays were socially and legally forced to conduct their affairs underground, sharing company with all sorts of other criminals.

>The dynamic of a relationship is essentially changed when the sexes of the participants is as well. The top/bottom dichotomy is almost universal among gay men, which seems uncomfortably similar to the dynamics of pederasty.
I don't even know where to start with this. First there's your gross-out comparison to pederasty, as if the choice of anal sex positions between two adult men is somehow a fetishistic simulation of pedophilia. Then there's your ignorant assumption that the positions gay men take during anal sex are (a) fixed, and (b) always an important part of the dynamic of their relationship. Finally, your absurd inability to see how the top/bottom dynamic mirrors the traditional power dynamic of a hetero couple (when, in general, gay couples are more flexible than hetero couples). Heteros basically _invented_ asymmetric sexual power, so don't go calling us fucking pedos when we're just doing what straights have always done.

Don't get offended on "our" behalf, I'm gay too. Your touchy reaction to the pederasty comparison I brought up is a banal symptom of ideological thinking, "ugh that's so gross how could you even SAY that don't you know how offensive that is." Crude of me to put it in such a mocking way but I can't articulate it any better right now.

The essential difference is that men assuming the bottom role is dysfunctional, men aren't meant to be feminised like that. And the heterosexual power dynamic isn't as cartoonish and obscene as the homosexual one, with bottoms assuming a sexual identity basically akin to female blackface.

>there's nothing harmful about gay sex per se
Isn't there? You'll probably retort to what I'm about to say by affirming that anal sex isn't essential to homosexual activity, and you'd be right, but for a lot of men it is the dominant form of sexual expression in their same-sex relationships.

Anal sex is the most medically risky form of penetrative sexual intercourse. And shouldn't it be obvious? Putting your penis into a bacterial hotbed with no natural lubrication should immediately seem a little unhealthy. Being on the receiving end is even worse, if you think getting fissures and hemorrhoids from constipation is bad...

We're past the era of homosexual repression in Western society. Marriage between two members of the same-sex is now sanctioned in the United States and fourteen other nations, not to mention mostly decriminalised in the rest of the developed world with state benefits for cohabitating couples in 21 others.

And yet the "gay culture" is still by and large one of the most openly promiscuous phenomena in the history of sexuality. Grindr claims to have 2 million active users, you've got chemsex popping up among MSM as a public health concern in the UK - one of the most liberal countries when it comes to homosexuality, you've got pride parades still hosting the most exuberant displays of "liberated" sexuality.

I mean, wew lad.

>The essential difference is that men assuming the bottom role is dysfunctional, men aren't meant to be feminised like that.
so virtue ethics again, got it. I think believing in virtue ethics takes more faith than practicing any religion.
>And the heterosexual power dynamic isn't as cartoonish and obscene as the homosexual one, with bottoms assuming a sexual identity basically akin to female blackface.
Do you have anything to say about this that isn't 100% pathos, ethos and anecdotal evidence? Sorry that there are gay guys who don't behave like standard hetero anglophone men. If we're just going to argue over anecdotes and personal gender aesthetics, I think that my boyfriend (usually a bottom) acts less feminine than me. I also don't know any gays whose behavior could somehow be construed as a mockery of women; that's a totally ridiculous assertion.
>Anal sex is the most medically risky form of penetrative sexual intercourse. [...] Being on the receiving end is even worse, if you think getting fissures and hemorrhoids from constipation is bad...
this is what someone who's never done responsible anal sounds like

and your dismissal of alternative forms of gay sex isn't fair, either. Even if anal had a 99% chance of killing you instantly, its popularity would be a cultural issue and not an issue with gay relationships per se.
>Marriage between two members of the same-sex is now sanctioned in the United States and fourteen other nations [...] And yet the "gay culture" is still by and large one of the most openly promiscuous phenomena in the history of sexuality
I forgot that a culture will disappear or completely change overnight if you remove the institutions that caused that culture to form over several centuries. Sorry about that. There must be something intrinsic to gayness that causes gay people to do a lot of drugs, it can't have anything to do with them having shared space with junkies for decades.
>wew lad
thanks for the meme.

>I forgot that a culture will disappear or completely change overnight if you remove the institutions that caused that culture to form over several centuries. Sorry about that. There must be something intrinsic to gayness that causes gay people to do a lot of drugs, it can't have anything to do with them having shared space with junkies for decades.
Well yes, anyone who practices homosexual activity will intrinsically be unhappy and will look for escape in more hedonism, drugs in this case.

The ethics I'm presenting are primarily deontological but whatever.

>Sorry that there are gay guys who don't behave like standard hetero anglophone men
There's a reason society proscribes certain behaviours and identities as positive examples for certain types of people to emulate, and again it matters in the context of the whole complex social web that creates a healthy society. People are expected to fulfill certain roles and have the self-respect and dignity to practice sexual self-restraint.

>If we're just going to argue over anecdotes and personal gender aesthetics, I think that my boyfriend (usually a bottom) acts less feminine than me
To bring things back to the larger picture.
>In a study of 447 gay men in China, researchers said that tops preferred feminized male faces, bottoms preferred masculinized male faces and versatiles had no preference for either feminized or masculinized male faces.[52]
> According to one study (Yee N., 2002), gay men who identify as "only tops" tend to prefer shorter men, while gay men who identify as "only bottoms" tend to prefer taller men.[98]
>According to one study (Yee N., 2002), gay men who identify as "only tops" tend to prefer lighter-skinned men while gay men who identify as "only bottoms" tend to prefer darker-skinned men.[98]
>A 1984 study, said that gay men tend to prefer gay men of the same age as ideal partners, but there was a statistically significant effect (p < 0.05) of masculinity-femininity. The study said that more feminine men tended to prefer relatively older men than themselves and more masculine men tended to prefer relatively younger men than themselves.[75]
Does my comparison to pederasty seem so intentionally offensive now? Tops/masculine gays prefer younger men with neotenised features, and bottoms/feminine gays prefer older men with developed features. This kind of sexual selection doesn't seem particularly cultural, either.

>this is what someone who's never done responsible anal sounds like
>responsible anal
The fact you have to take so many precautionary measures to achieve orgasm without catching a disease doesn't help your point.

>Even if anal had a 99% chance of killing you instantly, its popularity would be a cultural issue and not an issue with gay relationships per se.
Are you kidding? The reason anal is popular is because it's the only way to simulate actual procreation for a gay couple.

>I forgot that a culture will disappear or completely change overnight if you remove the institutions that caused that culture to form over several centuries. Sorry about that. There must be something intrinsic to gayness that causes gay people to do a lot of drugs, it can't have anything to do with them having shared space with junkies for decades.
The vices of gay culture aren't experiencing a decline in the light of it's acceptance, they're intensifying.

>proofs of god

The second to bottom panel asserts those attributes but does not satisfactorily justify hem. I've already given an example of a prime mover that satisfies the need for a first cause without having any of those attributes. Aquinas makes that first cause personal but this doesn't follow as most things with actuality are not personal but get the job done anyway. There is no reason that this first cause needed to be capable of all things when one would suffice.

Interesting, thanks for the read

np I find the topic pretty intriguing, especially trying to place my own experiences of sexual discovery into context. what others go through.

i should probably read foucault

Are you going to elaborate or are you just here to talk shit?

Well it's certainly more of an issue for you personally than me, so the interest makes sense.
Is there a chance I know you? I often Skype with a homosexual Catholic who studies lit and cs, American.

>There's a reason society proscribes certain behaviours and identities as positive examples for certain types of people to emulate, and again it matters in the context of the whole complex social web that creates a healthy society. People are expected to fulfill certain roles and have the self-respect and dignity to practice sexual self-restraint.
So it's a man's role to act like what a particular society thinks a "man" should act like, and a woman's to etc.? I see no reason why, with the exception of certain tasks limited by biological factors, it's bad for a man to act like a woman or vice versa. At any rate, there's not even any reason why both men in a gay couple cannot act like "men", unless having sex with another man necessarily has some sort of aesthetic "femininity" that you think is harmful (which is stupid in many ways).
>Does my comparison to pederasty seem so intentionally offensive now?
Yes! Not only are you still arguing about sociological phenomena rather than gayness-in-itself, you're still ignoring how the particular phenomenon of gay power dynamics mirrors hetero relationships. Straight men like smaller, younger-looking women, and straight women like taller, masculine-looking women.
>The fact you have to take so many precautionary measures to achieve orgasm without catching a disease doesn't help your point.
Like not hooking up with someone who has an STD, and using lube and condoms? It's pretty trivial to do anal if you are in a solid relationship and not just cruising.
>Are you kidding? The reason anal is popular is because it's the only way to simulate actual procreation for a gay couple.
And? You can still forego anal for all the other nice types of sex. Anal is probably like 5% of my total sex activity. You're still confusing the social habits of gay people with the intrinsic nature of a gay romantic/sexual relationship.
>The vices of gay culture aren't experiencing a decline in the light of it's acceptance, they're intensifying.
It's certainly possible that gay acceptance has increased the visibility of "gay culture" and allowed the culture that was already present to more freely engage in what it already did. (Although all your evidence that it has increased is anecdotal and weak.) It's also allowed me (and all the other gay people I know personally) to grow up in a healthy environment and develop real relationships without getting pulled into the shit. Again, trying to link sociological phenomena to intrinsic aspects of the gay sexual mind is ridiculous.

nah, ain't me. australian ;)

>arguing about sociological phenomena rather than gayness-in-itself
This is your opinion. I think there are enough distinguishing factors among a significant group of homosexual men to associate certain characteristics with gayness. There are studies where participants are able to very accurately guess the sexual orientation of someone based on a short visual exposure (allowing no time for conscious analysis) to their face, without decoration or possible cultural signifiers.
>you're still ignoring how the particular phenomenon of gay power dynamics mirrors hetero relationships. Straight men like smaller, younger-looking women, and straight women like taller, masculine-looking women.
You're not wrong, but I'll reiterate that I never said that homosexuality is essentially pederastic, I think that there is room for exploring the relation given certain similarities.

>Like not hooking up with someone who has an STD, and using lube and condoms? It's pretty trivial to do anal if you are in a solid relationship and not just cruising.
How about ruining your anal cavity and causing incontinence?
nature.com/ajg/journal/v111/n2/full/ajg2015419a.html

>You're still confusing the social habits of gay people with the intrinsic nature of a gay romantic/sexual relationship.
>Again, trying to link sociological phenomena to intrinsic aspects of the gay sexual mind is ridiculous.
You say this like there's not an important link. Every single negative thing you can say about the gay community is, according you, merely a result of external pressures determined by culture. The thought that the root of all this dysfunction could have something to do with the central unifying object that all these issues branch out from is offensive to you.

How about the high rates of comorbidity of mental illnesses in the gay community, even in socially progressive countries like Denmark? Here's another anecdote, I have OCD and depression. Maybe it has something to do with an inherent risk or some kind of brain structure that also causes me to be attracted to males, maybe it isn't. But I certainly wouldn't be surprised.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_Librorum_Prohibitorum
a selection of the banned authors
>Other noteworthy intellectual figures on the Index include Jean-Paul Sartre, Montaigne, Voltaire, Denis Diderot, Victor Hugo, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, André Gide, Emanuel Swedenborg, Baruch Spinoza, Immanuel Kant, David Hume, René Descartes, Francis Bacon, Thomas Browne, John Milton, John Locke, Nicolaus Copernicus, Galileo Galilei, Blaise Pascal, and Hugo Grotius.
note it was abolished in 1966

if there are biological factors in common between homosexuality and "femininity," drug use, or mental illness, that still would not count as a reason why gay sex and gay relationships are bad in themselves. It would only exacerbate a gay person's mental health problems if you made it illegal for them to pursue even a healthy, monogamous relationship. There's no reason we can't encourage monogamy and safety in gay culture while combating promiscuity, irresponsibility, drug use, etc. I still think it's ridiculous to believe that gay culture is caused by gayness in itself, rather than just correlated with it. If you put 1000 gay people in a nice suburb and another 1000 in Naked Lunch Land, it seems fairly obvious to assume that the first group will develop a healthier culture.

>How about ruining your anal cavity and causing incontinence?
Okay, sure. I agree that anal is significantly riskier than other types of sex. As a responsible human agent, I'm capable of exercising moderacy so that I don't implode my boyfriend's bp. A gay sexual relationship can be arbitrarily healthy; you can choose the level of risk you're comfortable with. Protected PIV is arguably the safest form of penetrative sex, and unfortunately gays don't get that one.

We haven't even talked about lesbians yet, and it seems to me like lesbian relationships throw multiple wrenches into these arguments about gender roles, cultural practices, and sex safety.

I find it curious how you at the same time deny the existence of intrinsic elements when it suits you and deny them when it is against you.

There's nothing intrinsic to gay sexual orientation other than being attracted to the same sex. There could be biological correlates, but those would not be _caused by_ homosexuality (they might share some causal factors). If there was a condition that made you gay and also made you commit homicide, you wouldn't say that being gay causes you to commit homicide (or that committing homicide turns you gay). Likewise, you wouldn't say that having gay sex is bad because "gay culture" (i.e. the group of people who have this condition) is correlated with murder. It's possible to make murder illegal without making gay sex illegal.

I'm also not accepting the intrinsic existence of all the correlates my buddy is suggesting, only admitting the possibility.

I don't know very much about lesbian relationships, though I've heard they have the highest rates of domestic violence among any sexual pairing.

You are correct in saying that all the 'bad fruits' of gay sex and gay relationships do not prove that gay sex and gay relationships themselves are bad, though I would certainly take them as an indication. You say that we should encourage healthy, monogamous relationships, but I wonder what your definition of 'healthy' is.

Unfortunately, this is kind of where our argument probably comes up against a wall. There's no way, if we eliminate rational or religious moral condemnations of homosexuality, for us to empirically say that homosexual relationships are inherently harmful. To then say that they are immoral implies that we view consenting harm against ourselves and a partner as immoral actions too. Not trying to "get the last word in," by saying that, if you have something else to add or argue then go ahead, I'm just not sure where I can go from here. I can say that I think a large portion of homosexual relationships and activities are obviously harmful, and that I think this is a result of homosexuality being intrinsically disordered, but I can't prove that homosexuality is in itself harmful as a "form."

I hope I haven't caused you any pain or anything by the way, user. This is a personal topic for both of us.

idk if you made a typo or not but I apparently read this comment incorrectly. If you meant what you wrote then my reply is nonsense and I don't know what you're actually referring to

>the second to bottom panel asserts those attributes but does not satisfactorily justify hem.I've already given an example of a prime mover that satisfies the need for a first cause without having any of those attributes.

In which post of yours? in you just stated that "A prime mover can exist as literally just a thing capable of causing an initial event" Which doesnt demonstrate any flaws with Aquinas logic nor does it provide any itself.

How can a prime mover not be omnipotent, omniscient, non physical, eternal and immutable ?

>Aquinas makes that first cause personal but this doesn't follow as most things with actuality are not personal but get the job done anyway.

It seems you are moving the goalposts from the validity of his argument of the unmoved mover to his argument of contingency.

>There is no reason that this first cause needed to be capable of all things when one would suffice.

If the unmoved mover or first cause were not capable of all things then it would demonstrate that they have potentialities which are yet to be actualized hence in need of a prior mover unless you wish to fall into infinite regress.

Hence why we can know for instance why say the sun isnt a first cause.

How does your argument apply to lesbians?

>It's completely biologically lesser because it serves no goal.

Population control

Overpopulation is a myth, population control happens without any special mechanism.

>How can a prime mover not be omnipotent, omniscient, non physical, eternal and immutable ?
Why must it have those traits? All it has to do to fulfill it's own necessity is set one thing into motion.

This is one of the worst memes. How can homosexuality affect population growth when only a small amount of the population are exclusively gay?

HIV kills lol

Why must it have those traits? All it has to do to fulfill it's own necessity is set one thing into motion.

Because having any of those traits would demonstrate that it has potentialites and hence unable to be the prime mover and break the infinite regress problem

you're very stupid user

But his meme game is top

Gotta agree with my son on that one his meme game is on point