ATHEISTS GTFIH

[Mogger]

If you are atheist, prove these arguments (three of the five ways) of Aquinas wrong:

• The First Way
  Things in the universe undergo change or motion. Anything that moves is set in motion by something else. Because an infinite chain of movers is impossible, there must be a First Unmoved Mover, which is God.
  
  
• The Second Way
  Everything in existence has an efficient cause that brought it about. Nothing can cause its own existence. Rejecting an infinite regress of causes, there must be a First Uncaused Cause.
  
  
• The Third Way
  Things in nature are contingent - they can either exist or not exist, meaning they depend on something else to exist. If everything were merely contingent, nothing would exist now. Therefore, there must be a Necessary Being that brings other things into being

 

[jp212]

If you are atheist, prove these arguments (three of the five ways) of Aquinas wrong:

• The First Way
  Things in the universe undergo change or motion. Anything that moves is set in motion by something else. Because an infinite chain of movers is impossible, there must be a First Unmoved Mover, which is God.
  
  
• The Second Way
  Everything in existence has an efficient cause that brought it about. Nothing can cause its own existence. Rejecting an infinite regress of causes, there must be a First Uncaused Cause.
  
  
• The Third Way
  Things in nature are contingent - they can either exist or not exist, meaning they depend on something else to exist. If everything were merely contingent, nothing would exist now. Therefore, there must be a Necessary Being that brings other things into being

The First Way: The Argument from Motion (Change)​

Aquinas’s Claim: Everything that changes/moves is set in motion by something else, and because an infinite regress of movers is impossible, there must be a First Unmoved Mover (God).

Philosophical and Scientific Objections:

1. Newtonian Physics and Quantum Mechanics:
   Aquinas relied on Aristotelian physics, which held that objects naturally come to rest unless continuously acted upon by an outside force. Modern physics disproves this:
   • Inertia: Newton’s First Law of Motion states that an object in motion stays in motion at a constant velocity without needing a continuous mover.
   • Quantum Fluctuations: In quantum mechanics, virtual particles routinely pop into existence or change states spontaneously without a prior physical cause, undermining the premise that every change requires a distinct cause.
2. The Arbitrary Exception (Special Pleading):
   The argument establishes a strict rule: everything in motion requires a mover. But it resolves this by making an unevidenced exception for God (an "Unmoved Mover"). If God can exist without a mover, then the universe or energy itself could exist without a prior mover, rendering the premise inconsistent.
3. Fallacy of Infinite Regress Prohibition:
   The argument simply asserts that an infinite regress of causes is impossible. However, mathematics and modern cosmology show that infinite sets and infinite series are logically sound and mathematically coherent.

The Second Way: The First Cause Argument (Efficient Cause)​

Aquinas’s Claim: Everything has an efficient cause; nothing can cause itself. An infinite chain of causes is impossible, so there must be a First Uncaused Cause.

Philosophical and Scientific Objections:

1. Equating "First Cause" with God:
   Even if one accepts that the universe had a "first cause" (such as the Big Bang or a quantum fluctuation), there is no logical link showing that this cause must be a sentient, all-knowing, omnibenevolent, or personal deity. The cause could simply be an impersonal, natural physical event or field.
2. Temporal vs. Hierarchical Causation Confusion:
   Cosmologists point out that "cause and effect" are temporal concepts that operate within spacetime. Because time itself began with the Big Bang, applying cause-and-effect language "before" or "outside" the universe misapplies our localized concepts of cause and time to a realm where they may not operate.
3. Logical Self-Contradiction:
   Similar to the First Way:
   • Premise 1: Nothing can exist without a cause.
   • Conclusion: Therefore, something (God) exists without a cause.
   • If the fundamental rule can be broken by God, it can just as easily be broken by the fundamental matter/energy of the universe itself (e.g., the Law of Conservation of Energy, which states energy cannot be created or destroyed).

The Third Way: The Argument from Contingency​

Aquinas’s Claim: Things in nature are contingent (they can exist or not exist). If everything were merely contingent, then at some point in infinite past time, nothing would have existed. But since things exist now, there must be a Necessary Being (one that must exist).

Philosophical and Scientific Objections:

1. The Fallacy of Composition:
   Aquinas assumes that because every individual object within the universe is contingent, the universe as a whole must also be contingent. This is a logical fallacy: just because every brick in a wall is small does not mean the wall itself is small. The universe as a collective system may be necessary, even if its constituent parts are temporary.
2. Flawed Logic on Time and Non-Existence:
   Aquinas claims: "If everything is contingent, at some point nothing would exist." This is logically unsound for two reasons:
   • Even if every individual item has a finite lifespan, their overlapping existence throughout an infinite past can ensure that there is never a moment of pure emptiness (just as there is no point on an infinitely long timeline without numbers, even if no single number covers the whole line).
   • Energy and fundamental matter cannot be destroyed—only transformed. Therefore, at the most basic level, physical reality may be necessary rather than contingent.
3. Defining "Necessary Being" into Existence:
   Philosophers like David Hume and Immanuel Kant argued that the concept of a "necessary being" is logically problematic. Necessity applies to propositions (like $2 + 2 = 4$), not to physical existence. Any being whose existence can be conceived can also be conceived as not existing without creating a logical contradiction.

Key Takeaway​

All three arguments rely on two core assumptions:

1. An infinite regress is impossible.
2. A fundamental entity must exist exempt from the rules governing everything else.

Critical analysis reveals that infinite regresses are mathematically viable, modern physics does not support a strict Aristotelian view of causation, and exempting a deity while denying the same self-existence to the physical universe itself remains an unsupported leap in logic

 

[Mogger]

The First Way: The Argument from Motion (Change)​

Aquinas’s Claim: Everything that changes/moves is set in motion by something else, and because an infinite regress of movers is impossible, there must be a First Unmoved Mover (God).

Philosophical and Scientific Objections:

1. Newtonian Physics and Quantum Mechanics:
   Aquinas relied on Aristotelian physics, which held that objects naturally come to rest unless continuously acted upon by an outside force. Modern physics disproves this:
   • Inertia: Newton’s First Law of Motion states that an object in motion stays in motion at a constant velocity without needing a continuous mover.
   • Quantum Fluctuations: In quantum mechanics, virtual particles routinely pop into existence or change states spontaneously without a prior physical cause, undermining the premise that every change requires a distinct cause.
2. The Arbitrary Exception (Special Pleading):
   The argument establishes a strict rule: everything in motion requires a mover. But it resolves this by making an unevidenced exception for God (an "Unmoved Mover"). If God can exist without a mover, then the universe or energy itself could exist without a prior mover, rendering the premise inconsistent.
3. Fallacy of Infinite Regress Prohibition:
   The argument simply asserts that an infinite regress of causes is impossible. However, mathematics and modern cosmology show that infinite sets and infinite series are logically sound and mathematically coherent.

The Second Way: The First Cause Argument (Efficient Cause)​

Aquinas’s Claim: Everything has an efficient cause; nothing can cause itself. An infinite chain of causes is impossible, so there must be a First Uncaused Cause.

Philosophical and Scientific Objections:

1. Equating "First Cause" with God:
   Even if one accepts that the universe had a "first cause" (such as the Big Bang or a quantum fluctuation), there is no logical link showing that this cause must be a sentient, all-knowing, omnibenevolent, or personal deity. The cause could simply be an impersonal, natural physical event or field.
2. Temporal vs. Hierarchical Causation Confusion:
   Cosmologists point out that "cause and effect" are temporal concepts that operate within spacetime. Because time itself began with the Big Bang, applying cause-and-effect language "before" or "outside" the universe misapplies our localized concepts of cause and time to a realm where they may not operate.
3. Logical Self-Contradiction:
   Similar to the First Way:
   • Premise 1: Nothing can exist without a cause.
   • Conclusion: Therefore, something (God) exists without a cause.
   • If the fundamental rule can be broken by God, it can just as easily be broken by the fundamental matter/energy of the universe itself (e.g., the Law of Conservation of Energy, which states energy cannot be created or destroyed).

The Third Way: The Argument from Contingency​

Aquinas’s Claim: Things in nature are contingent (they can exist or not exist). If everything were merely contingent, then at some point in infinite past time, nothing would have existed. But since things exist now, there must be a Necessary Being (one that must exist).

Philosophical and Scientific Objections:

1. The Fallacy of Composition:
   Aquinas assumes that because every individual object within the universe is contingent, the universe as a whole must also be contingent. This is a logical fallacy: just because every brick in a wall is small does not mean the wall itself is small. The universe as a collective system may be necessary, even if its constituent parts are temporary.
2. Flawed Logic on Time and Non-Existence:
   Aquinas claims: "If everything is contingent, at some point nothing would exist."This is logically unsound for two reasons:
   • Even if every individual item has a finite lifespan, their overlapping existence throughout an infinite past can ensure that there is never a moment of pure emptiness (just as there is no point on an infinitely long timeline without numbers, even if no single number covers the whole line).
   • Energy and fundamental matter cannot be destroyed—only transformed. Therefore, at the most basic level, physical reality may be necessary rather than contingent.
3. Defining "Necessary Being" into Existence:
   Philosophers like David Hume and Immanuel Kant argued that the concept of a "necessary being" is logically problematic. Necessity applies to propositions (like $2 + 2 = 4$), not to physical existence. Any being whose existence can be conceived can also be conceived as not existing without creating a logical contradiction.

Key Takeaway​

All three arguments rely on two core assumptions:

1. An infinite regress is impossible.
2. A fundamental entity must exist exempt from the rules governing everything else.

Critical analysis reveals that infinite regresses are mathematically viable, modern physics does not support a strict Aristotelian view of causation, and exempting a deity while denying the same self-existence to the physical universe itself remains an unsupported leap in logic

So you don’t have an argument?

 

[Morgan]

The First Way: The Argument from Motion (Change)​

Aquinas’s Claim: Everything that changes/moves is set in motion by something else, and because an infinite regress of movers is impossible, there must be a First Unmoved Mover (God).

Philosophical and Scientific Objections:

1. Newtonian Physics and Quantum Mechanics:
   Aquinas relied on Aristotelian physics, which held that objects naturally come to rest unless continuously acted upon by an outside force. Modern physics disproves this:
   • Inertia: Newton’s First Law of Motion states that an object in motion stays in motion at a constant velocity without needing a continuous mover.
   • Quantum Fluctuations: In quantum mechanics, virtual particles routinely pop into existence or change states spontaneously without a prior physical cause, undermining the premise that every change requires a distinct cause.
2. The Arbitrary Exception (Special Pleading):
   The argument establishes a strict rule: everything in motion requires a mover. But it resolves this by making an unevidenced exception for God (an "Unmoved Mover"). If God can exist without a mover, then the universe or energy itself could exist without a prior mover, rendering the premise inconsistent.
3. Fallacy of Infinite Regress Prohibition:
   The argument simply asserts that an infinite regress of causes is impossible. However, mathematics and modern cosmology show that infinite sets and infinite series are logically sound and mathematically coherent.

The Second Way: The First Cause Argument (Efficient Cause)​

Aquinas’s Claim: Everything has an efficient cause; nothing can cause itself. An infinite chain of causes is impossible, so there must be a First Uncaused Cause.

Philosophical and Scientific Objections:

1. Equating "First Cause" with God:
   Even if one accepts that the universe had a "first cause" (such as the Big Bang or a quantum fluctuation), there is no logical link showing that this cause must be a sentient, all-knowing, omnibenevolent, or personal deity. The cause could simply be an impersonal, natural physical event or field.
2. Temporal vs. Hierarchical Causation Confusion:
   Cosmologists point out that "cause and effect" are temporal concepts that operate within spacetime. Because time itself began with the Big Bang, applying cause-and-effect language "before" or "outside" the universe misapplies our localized concepts of cause and time to a realm where they may not operate.
3. Logical Self-Contradiction:
   Similar to the First Way:
   • Premise 1: Nothing can exist without a cause.
   • Conclusion: Therefore, something (God) exists without a cause.
   • If the fundamental rule can be broken by God, it can just as easily be broken by the fundamental matter/energy of the universe itself (e.g., the Law of Conservation of Energy, which states energy cannot be created or destroyed).

The Third Way: The Argument from Contingency​

Aquinas’s Claim: Things in nature are contingent (they can exist or not exist). If everything were merely contingent, then at some point in infinite past time, nothing would have existed. But since things exist now, there must be a Necessary Being (one that must exist).

Philosophical and Scientific Objections:

1. The Fallacy of Composition:
   Aquinas assumes that because every individual object within the universe is contingent, the universe as a whole must also be contingent. This is a logical fallacy: just because every brick in a wall is small does not mean the wall itself is small. The universe as a collective system may be necessary, even if its constituent parts are temporary.
2. Flawed Logic on Time and Non-Existence:
   Aquinas claims: "If everything is contingent, at some point nothing would exist."This is logically unsound for two reasons:
   • Even if every individual item has a finite lifespan, their overlapping existence throughout an infinite past can ensure that there is never a moment of pure emptiness (just as there is no point on an infinitely long timeline without numbers, even if no single number covers the whole line).
   • Energy and fundamental matter cannot be destroyed—only transformed. Therefore, at the most basic level, physical reality may be necessary rather than contingent.
3. Defining "Necessary Being" into Existence:
   Philosophers like David Hume and Immanuel Kant argued that the concept of a "necessary being" is logically problematic. Necessity applies to propositions (like $2 + 2 = 4$), not to physical existence. Any being whose existence can be conceived can also be conceived as not existing without creating a logical contradiction.

Key Takeaway​

All three arguments rely on two core assumptions:

1. An infinite regress is impossible.
2. A fundamental entity must exist exempt from the rules governing everything else.

Critical analysis reveals that infinite regresses are mathematically viable, modern physics does not support a strict Aristotelian view of causation, and exempting a deity while denying the same self-existence to the physical universe itself remains an unsupported leap in logic

Niggas will stare u dead in the eye and quote ai and switch a few words

 

[jp212]

View attachment 5682503
Niggas will stare u dead in the eye and quote ai and switch a few words

that is straight ai i wanted to make that mf read all dat shit

 

[mangotimer]

Atheism win nigga there is no sky daddy that somehow created the universe and somehow was able to hide away a garden for centuries and was able to turn water into wine

 

[grymhackare]

christianity is outdated and was used as an explanation to explain how everything could have been made, yes i DNR and no i wont read cause i know im right

 

[sqm]

dnr

there’s no sky daddy that’s watching over you g

 

[Mogger]

that is straight ai i wanted to make that mf read all dat shit

And you think i did?

 

[Mogger]

Atheism win nigga there is no sky daddy that somehow created the universe and somehow was able to hide away a garden for centuries and was able to turn water into wine

So prove the arguments wrong

 

[Mogger]

christianity is outdated and was used as an explanation to explain how everything could have been made, yes i DNR and no i wont read cause i know im right

Those are arguments for god not christianity

 

[jp212]

And you think i did?

you are stupid anyway cause the post itself was the argument

 

[Mogger]

dnr

there’s no sky daddy that’s watching over you g

Based on what?

 

[hopingforluck]

Dnr.

Im a miserable ltn while o connor is a 6'7 Chad trillionere.

Fuck god

 

[Francisco_Bs]

If you are atheist, prove these arguments (three of the five ways) of Aquinas wrong:

• The First Way
  Things in the universe undergo change or motion. Anything that moves is set in motion by something else. Because an infinite chain of movers is impossible, there must be a First Unmoved Mover, which is God.
  
  
• The Second Way
  Everything in existence has an efficient cause that brought it about. Nothing can cause its own existence. Rejecting an infinite regress of causes, there must be a First Uncaused Cause.
  
  
• The Third Way
  Things in nature are contingent - they can either exist or not exist, meaning they depend on something else to exist. If everything were merely contingent, nothing would exist now. Therefore, there must be a Necessary Being that brings other things into being

Dnr

 

[Mogger]

you are stupid anyway cause the post itself was the argument

What?

 

[grymhackare]

Those are arguments for god not christianity

yo what, all the religions are under one god, if god dont exist then what are the religions even about

 

[sqm]

Based on what?

you want me to disprove the existence of something that doesn’t exist

how about u provide evidence for its existence

 

[Mogger]

yo what, all the religions are under one god, if god dont exist then what are the religions even about

No you are incorrect, also i’m talking about if god is real, not about which religion is true

 

[tomacōck]

I agree but disagree with Christianity

 

[Mogger]

you want me to disprove the existence of something that doesn’t exist

how about u provide evidence for its existence

Read my post, i literally did

 

[Mogger]

I agree but disagree with Christianity

i didn’t even talk about christianity tho

 

[tomacōck]

The First Way: The Argument from Motion (Change)​

Aquinas’s Claim: Everything that changes/moves is set in motion by something else, and because an infinite regress of movers is impossible, there must be a First Unmoved Mover (God).

Philosophical and Scientific Objections:

1. Newtonian Physics and Quantum Mechanics:
   Aquinas relied on Aristotelian physics, which held that objects naturally come to rest unless continuously acted upon by an outside force. Modern physics disproves this:
   • Inertia: Newton’s First Law of Motion states that an object in motion stays in motion at a constant velocity without needing a continuous mover.
   • Quantum Fluctuations: In quantum mechanics, virtual particles routinely pop into existence or change states spontaneously without a prior physical cause, undermining the premise that every change requires a distinct cause.
2. The Arbitrary Exception (Special Pleading):
   The argument establishes a strict rule: everything in motion requires a mover. But it resolves this by making an unevidenced exception for God (an "Unmoved Mover"). If God can exist without a mover, then the universe or energy itself could exist without a prior mover, rendering the premise inconsistent.
3. Fallacy of Infinite Regress Prohibition:
   The argument simply asserts that an infinite regress of causes is impossible. However, mathematics and modern cosmology show that infinite sets and infinite series are logically sound and mathematically coherent.

The Second Way: The First Cause Argument (Efficient Cause)​

Aquinas’s Claim: Everything has an efficient cause; nothing can cause itself. An infinite chain of causes is impossible, so there must be a First Uncaused Cause.

Philosophical and Scientific Objections:

1. Equating "First Cause" with God:
   Even if one accepts that the universe had a "first cause" (such as the Big Bang or a quantum fluctuation), there is no logical link showing that this cause must be a sentient, all-knowing, omnibenevolent, or personal deity. The cause could simply be an impersonal, natural physical event or field.
2. Temporal vs. Hierarchical Causation Confusion:
   Cosmologists point out that "cause and effect" are temporal concepts that operate within spacetime. Because time itself began with the Big Bang, applying cause-and-effect language "before" or "outside" the universe misapplies our localized concepts of cause and time to a realm where they may not operate.
3. Logical Self-Contradiction:
   Similar to the First Way:
   • Premise 1: Nothing can exist without a cause.
   • Conclusion: Therefore, something (God) exists without a cause.
   • If the fundamental rule can be broken by God, it can just as easily be broken by the fundamental matter/energy of the universe itself (e.g., the Law of Conservation of Energy, which states energy cannot be created or destroyed).

The Third Way: The Argument from Contingency​

Aquinas’s Claim: Things in nature are contingent (they can exist or not exist). If everything were merely contingent, then at some point in infinite past time, nothing would have existed. But since things exist now, there must be a Necessary Being (one that must exist).

Philosophical and Scientific Objections:

1. The Fallacy of Composition:
   Aquinas assumes that because every individual object within the universe is contingent, the universe as a whole must also be contingent. This is a logical fallacy: just because every brick in a wall is small does not mean the wall itself is small. The universe as a collective system may be necessary, even if its constituent parts are temporary.
2. Flawed Logic on Time and Non-Existence:
   Aquinas claims: "If everything is contingent, at some point nothing would exist."This is logically unsound for two reasons:
   • Even if every individual item has a finite lifespan, their overlapping existence throughout an infinite past can ensure that there is never a moment of pure emptiness (just as there is no point on an infinitely long timeline without numbers, even if no single number covers the whole line).
   • Energy and fundamental matter cannot be destroyed—only transformed. Therefore, at the most basic level, physical reality may be necessary rather than contingent.
3. Defining "Necessary Being" into Existence:
   Philosophers like David Hume and Immanuel Kant argued that the concept of a "necessary being" is logically problematic. Necessity applies to propositions (like $2 + 2 = 4$), not to physical existence. Any being whose existence can be conceived can also be conceived as not existing without creating a logical contradiction.

Key Takeaway​

All three arguments rely on two core assumptions:

1. An infinite regress is impossible.
2. A fundamental entity must exist exempt from the rules governing everything else.

Critical analysis reveals that infinite regresses are mathematically viable, modern physics does not support a strict Aristotelian view of causation, and exempting a deity while denying the same self-existence to the physical universe itself remains an unsupported leap in logic

Nothing can move by itself. We do not deny the possibility of instantaneous movement causing infinite changes but first movement must happen somehow
And you cannot pass infinite time. Infinite movement chains require that, which means that infinite regress implies that before existence an infinite time passed which means existence never happened

 

[jp212]

What?

u said

So you don’t have an argument?

i dont need an argument since my post proved your arguments wrong and explained why

 

[Mogger]

u said

i dont need an argument since my post proved your arguments wrong and explained why

That wasn’t you, it was ai

 

[jp212]

That wasn’t you, it was ai

doesnt matter it was still right and you were wrong

 

[asymmetricalMoid]

acc caging at this retard

 

[Mogger]

acc caging at this retard

No argument

 

[Mogger]

doesnt matter it was still right and you were wrong

Write an argument yourself and i’ll actually read it

 

[Morgan]

Niggas will swear it isnt true but they only dont believe it bc it doesnt benefit them in the sense of them being showered with riches

 

[jp212]

Write an argument yourself and i’ll actually read it

dont need to cause i already proved you wrong

 

[grymhackare]

No you are incorrect, also i’m talking about if god is real, not about which religion is true

im sorry but it seems you are low iq. God says he loves everyone yet he is still willing to send them to eternal burning? sounds like something to draw people in to make money of off them. God gives people cancer, god makes people ugly sound a little fishy.

 

[Krivi.]

If you are atheist, prove these arguments (three of the five ways) of Aquinas wrong:

• The First Way
  Things in the universe undergo change or motion. Anything that moves is set in motion by something else. Because an infinite chain of movers is impossible, there must be a First Unmoved Mover, which is God.
  
  
• The Second Way
  Everything in existence has an efficient cause that brought it about. Nothing can cause its own existence. Rejecting an infinite regress of causes, there must be a First Uncaused Cause.
  
  
• The Third Way
  Things in nature are contingent - they can either exist or not exist, meaning they depend on something else to exist. If everything were merely contingent, nothing would exist now. Therefore, there must be a Necessary Being that brings other things into being

If you are atheist, prove these arguments (three of the five ways) of Aquinas wrong:

• The First Way
  Things in the universe undergo change or motion. Anything that moves is set in motion by something else. Because an infinite chain of movers is impossible, there must be a First Unmoved Mover, which is God.
  
  
• The Second Way
  Everything in existence has an efficient cause that brought it about. Nothing can cause its own existence. Rejecting an infinite regress of causes, there must be a First Uncaused Cause.
  
  
• The Third Way
  Things in nature are contingent - they can either exist or not exist, meaning they depend on something else to exist. If everything were merely contingent, nothing would exist now. Therefore, there must be a Necessary Being that brings other things into being

These arguments don’t prove God. If everything needs a mover or a cause, then God would need one too. You can’t just say “everything except God.” . And even if something started the universe, that doesn’t mean it’s a God who thinks, talks, or cares about humans. It could just be the universe itself. You’re taking a gap in explanation and calling it God. That’s not proof.
Also there are multiple videos on YouTube debunking thomas aquanis

 

[Mogger]

im sorry but it seems you are low iq. God says he loves everyone yet he is still willing to send them to eternal burning? sounds like something to draw people in to make money of off them. God gives people cancer, god makes people ugly sound a little fishy.

Dude, i’m talking about the existence of god, not about is he good or bad

 

[grymhackare]

Dude, i’m talking about the existence of god, not about is he good or bad

thats what the fuck im saying are you not reading. He doesnt exist there was a huge explosion taht made what we know as planet earth, if god would exist then why would he not make eternal peace, people giga chads, give everyone the best health possible. gotta read between the lines

 

[Turkic Albanian]

If you are atheist, prove these arguments (three of the five ways) of Aquinas wrong:

• The First Way
  Things in the universe undergo change or motion. Anything that moves is set in motion by something else. Because an infinite chain of movers is impossible, there must be a First Unmoved Mover, which is God.
  
  
• The Second Way
  Everything in existence has an efficient cause that brought it about. Nothing can cause its own existence. Rejecting an infinite regress of causes, there must be a First Uncaused Cause.
  
  
• The Third Way
  Things in nature are contingent - they can either exist or not exist, meaning they depend on something else to exist. If everything were merely contingent, nothing would exist now. Therefore, there must be a Necessary Being that brings other things into being

"Because an infinite chain of movers is impossible"

It's not impossible

"there must be a First Uncaused Cause."
Not if something always existed

"there must be a Necessary Being that brings other things into being"

There's no evidence of that

 

[Mogger]

These arguments don’t prove God. If everything needs a mover or a cause, then God would need one too. You can’t just say “everything except God.” . And even if something started the universe, that doesn’t mean it’s a God who thinks, talks, or cares about humans. It could just be the universe itself. You’re taking a gap in explanation and calling it God. That’s not proof.
Also there are multiple videos on YouTube debunking thomas aquanis

Aquinas doesn’t say that everything needs a cause. Also it’s not god of the gaps because Aquinas is arguing about the fundamental explanation of reality instead of gaps in science knowledge

 

[Krivi.]

Aquinas doesn’t say that everything needs a cause. Also it’s not god of the gaps because Aquinas is arguing about the fundamental explanation of reality instead of gaps in science knowledge

He still just made God the exception. And even if something fundamental exists, that doesn’t make it God.

 

[Mogger]

"Because an infinite chain of movers is impossible"

It's not impossible

"there must be a First Uncaused Cause."
Not if something always existed

"there must be a Necessary Being that brings other things into being"

There's no evidence of that

Aquinas isn’t saying everything needs a cause. He’s saying an infinite chain of dependent causes can’t ultimately explain why anything has causal power in the first place. Saying something could have always existed doesn’t really answer that, since an eternal chain could still be dependent. If you reject a necessary being, you’d still have to explain why an infinite chain of contingent things is enough as an ultimate explanation.

 

[Turkic Albanian]

Aquinas isn’t saying everything needs a cause. He’s saying an infinite chain of dependent causes can’t ultimately explain why anything has causal power in the first place. Saying something could have always existed doesn’t really answer that, since an eternal chain could still be dependent. If you reject a necessary being, you’d still have to explain why an infinite chain of contingent things is enough as an ultimate explanation.

"you’d still have to explain why an infinite chain of contingent things is enough as an ultimate explanation.".

Brute fact.

Why should it have been any other way?

 

[Mogger]

"you’d still have to explain why an infinite chain of contingent things is enough as an ultimate explanation.".

Brute fact.

Why should it have been any other way?

Why should brute facts be acceptable as an ultimate explanation?

 

[Turkic Albanian]

Why should brute facts be acceptable as an ultimate explanation?

Your God hypothesis is a brute fact

Why cant I use a brute fact of my own but with naturalism as the mechanism instead of God

Double standards

 

[Mogger]

Your God hypothesis is a brute fact

Why cant I use a brute fact of my own but with naturalism as the mechanism instead of God

Double standards

The difference is that Aquinas isn’t proposing God as an arbitrary brute fact. He’s arguing for a necessary being that doesn’t depend on anything else for its existence. Saying nature is a brute fact doesn’t show that nature is necessary or self explanatory.

 

[Turkic Albanian]

The difference is that Aquinas isn’t proposing God as an arbitrary brute fact. He’s arguing for a necessary being that doesn’t depend on anything else for its existence. Saying nature is a brute fact doesn’t show that nature is necessary or self explanatory.

If God can exist independently then why can't nature also exist independently?

 

[Mogger]

If God can exist independently then why can't nature also exist independently?

Nature is made of contingent things, so it can’t be the necessary foundation.
You’d have to show that nature itself is necessary, rather than asserting it can exist independently.

 

[Turkic Albanian]

Nature is made of contingent things, so it can’t be the necessary foundation.
You’d have to show that nature itself is necessary, rather than asserting it can exist independently.

Maybe nature itself is necessary, the absence of nature was perhaps not even a possibility, true nothingness or the absence of a natural reality Was perhaps never on the cards.

True nothingness doesn't exist, it's a made up abstraction of the human mind used for thought experiments

 

[accinr]

god is tales
im manlet ltn with giga high inhib while o connor is a 6'7 chad slayying a stacy as we speak
jfl id be damned if i believed in this all powerful deity
actual cage if you believe god exists

 

[Scandi.]

If you are atheist, prove these arguments (three of the five ways) of Aquinas wrong:

• The First Way
  Things in the universe undergo change or motion. Anything that moves is set in motion by something else. Because an infinite chain of movers is impossible, there must be a First Unmoved Mover, which is God.
  
  
• The Second Way
  Everything in existence has an efficient cause that brought it about. Nothing can cause its own existence. Rejecting an infinite regress of causes, there must be a First Uncaused Cause.
  
  
• The Third Way
  Things in nature are contingent - they can either exist or not exist, meaning they depend on something else to exist. If everything were merely contingent, nothing would exist now. Therefore, there must be a Necessary Being that brings other things into being

First you’ll have to prove these assumptions and then we can debate

 

[Mogger]

Maybe nature itself is necessary, the absence of nature was perhaps not even a possibility, true nothingness or the absence of a natural reality Was perhaps never on the cards.

True nothingness doesn't exist, it's a made up abstraction of the human mind used for thought experiments

Could be, but it still needs an argument

 

[Turkic Albanian]

First you’ll have to prove these assumptions and then we can debate

View attachment 5682725

Yeah, the arguments are based on completely ass pulled premises jfls