I stopped being an Atheist after getting iq mogged by a greek manlet

wishIwasSalludon

wishIwasSalludon

broken but not destroyed
Joined
Nov 9, 2023
Posts
29,974
Reputation
51,729
I was familiar with the contingency argument but never excepted its conclusion because I didnt see why the universe couldnt just be eternal, or say there be some sort of big bang, big crunch cycle.

This argument however is different, I have been engaging with classical philosophy more while I heard of it I never payed much attention to it. I got iq mogged by this Greek manlet called Aristotle who lived

I recently took to reading more about the Greeks and came across Aristotle's argument from motion. I've been contemplating it for over a month and cant come up with a reasonable objection.

As far as I can tell the moment you accept the first premise its over. But no one reasonable denies the first premise obviously change occurs.
1759352064858


I came up with 3 objections all of which failed under scrutiny. I always came to the conclusion that Aristotle is most likely correct.

1.
Immediately after reading the argument my initial objection was positing that a potential actualizes itself. I felt embarrassed having thought this because if you just think about it for more than a second you realize this is a retarded objection. For a potential to actualize itself it would have to be actual which is the very thing we are questioning.

2.
The second and maybe the most intuitive example is to posit that there is an infinite number of actualities which then actualize other potentialities. This avoids the problem of a potential actualizing itself in the same respect. Each actualization of a potential is being actualized by an actuality in a different respect so it avoids the problem.

Aristotle addresses this in his argument but lets just say that hes wrong for the sake of argument. Its not just enough to posit something we need to think about whether its likely. We could posit the idea that that the universe was created by a dalit farting after eating expired curry. This would sufficiently explain the universe and yet no one would accept it for obvious reasons.

We need to ask the same question here, is this likely to be true? The answer is no because of occams razor. We arent just multiplying entities beyond necessity we are multiplying them infinitely. That is why I rejected this possibility even if we reject Aristotle's objection to it.

3.
a)
At this point I was getting desperate so then what if we just deny the PSR? After thinking I found this problematic for several reasons. First off if we deny the PSR a whole new scenario is possible. Our perceptual states causing us to believing anything could be occurring for no reason at all so you cant even give a reason for the PSR being false. So it would seem that to deny the PSR you would also have to accept the PSR.

b)
The second reason is even if the PSR is false it would seem that violations of the PSR are incredibly unlikely. There is no example you can given which strictly violates the PSR. At best you can give an example of the strong PSR being violated but even that is suspect as there are deterministic interpretations of QM. So violations of the PSR seem to be unlikely so all we have done by denying the PSR is go from "there is a 100% chance of actus purus" to "there is a 99% chance of actus purus". Its not exactly a robust objection. It suffers the exact same problem as objection 2.

c) There's also the problem of the burden of proof. As induction points heavily to the PSR being true so that places the burden of proof on the deniers of the PSR to show why the PSR is not true. But then the problem in objection A rears its head again. If the PSR is false you have no reason to trust your perceptual states, thus you cannot give a good reason for the PSR being false. As Alexander Pruss said "there is no demon deceiving you, instead your perceptual states are occurring for no reason at all".

So now we have to accept that Aristotle's pure act most likely exist. But who says this pure act is intelligent? Sure it exists but if its not even conscious you cant really call it "God". But thinking about it more Occam's razor would suggest this pure act has intent as if it didnt it would have had to create a VERY large amount of universes for us to be here.

So it would seem that this being has 3 properties at least. It is immaterial, intelligent and it is actus purus(pure act) it has no potentiality it is unchanging.

@imontheloose @SlayerJonas @Mainlander
 
  • +1
  • JFL
  • Woah
Reactions: Mainlander, cantescapebp, HTNcutecel and 10 others
0
 
  • +1
Reactions: qxdr
I was familiar with the contingency argument but never excepted its conclusion because I didnt see why the universe couldnt just be eternal, or say there be some sort of big bang, big crunch cycle.

This argument however is different, I have been engaging with classical philosophy more while I heard of it I never payed much attention to it. I got iq mogged by this Greek manlet called Aristotle who lived

I recently took to reading more about the Greeks and came across Aristotle's argument from motion. I've been contemplating it for over a month and cant come up with a reasonable objection.

As far as I can tell the moment you accept the first premise its over. But no one reasonable denies the first premise obviously change occurs.
View attachment 4165517

I came up with 3 objections all of which failed under scrutiny. I always came to the conclusion that Aristotle is most likely correct.

1.
Immediately after reading the argument my initial objection was positing that a potential actualizes itself. I felt embarrassed having thought this because if you just think about it for more than a second you realize this is a retarded objection. For a potential to actualize itself it would have to be actual which is the very thing we are questioning.

2.
The second and maybe the most intuitive example is to posit that there is an infinite number of actualities which then actualize other potentialities. This avoids the problem of a potential actualizing itself in the same respect. Each actualization of a potential is being actualized by an actuality in a different respect so it avoids the problem.

Aristotle addresses this in his argument but lets just say that hes wrong for the sake of argument. Its not just enough to posit something we need to think about whether its likely. We could posit the idea that that the universe was created by a dalit farting after eating expired curry. This would sufficiently explain the universe and yet no one would accept it for obvious reasons.

We need to ask the same question here, is this likely to be true? The answer is no because of occams razor. We arent just multiplying entities beyond necessity we are multiplying them infinitely. That is why I rejected this possibility even if we reject Aristotle's objection to it.

3.
a)
At this point I was getting desperate so then what if we just deny the PSR? After thinking I found this problematic for several reasons. First off if we deny the PSR a whole new scenario is possible. Our perceptual states causing us to believing anything could be occurring for no reason at all so you cant even give a reason for the PSR being false. So it would seem that to deny the PSR you would also have to accept the PSR.

b)
The second reason is even if the PSR is false it would seem that violations of the PSR are incredibly unlikely. There is no example you can given which strictly violates the PSR. At best you can give an example of the strong PSR being violated but even that is suspect as there are deterministic interpretations of QM. So violations of the PSR seem to be unlikely so all we have done by denying the PSR is go from "there is a 100% chance of actus purus" to "there is a 99% chance of actus purus". Its not exactly a robust objection. It suffers the exact same problem as objection 2.

c) There's also the problem of the burden of proof. As induction points heavily to the PSR being true so that places the burden of proof on the deniers of the PSR to show why the PSR is not true. But then the problem in objection A rears its head again. If the PSR is false you have no reason to trust your perceptual states, thus you cannot give a good reason for the PSR being false. As Alexander Pruss said "there is no demon deceiving you, instead your perceptual states are occurring for no reason at all".

So now we have to accept that Aristotle's pure act most likely exist. But who says this pure act is intelligent? Sure it exists but if its not even conscious you cant really call it "God". But thinking about it more Occam's razor would suggest this pure act has intent as if it didnt it would have had to create a VERY large amount of universes for us to be here.

So it would seem that this being has 3 properties at least. It is immaterial, intelligent and it is actus purus(pure act) it has no potentiality it is unchanging.

@imontheloose @SlayerJonas @Mainlander
Biggest Dnr of all time
 
  • +1
Reactions: qxdr, brotato78, kasrkin and 3 others
Raped by my 11 page doc on the problem of evil. @SlayerJonas
 
  • +1
Reactions: Rainman988, Node, SlayerJonas and 1 other person
So now you are what?
 
Wait does that mean ur Christian now? Mirin
 
  • +1
Reactions: takethewhitepill and d0wnpour_
So now you are what?
Deist

Raped by my 11 page doc on the problem of evil. @SlayerJonas
Im not religious, I just believe in pure act as rationality strongly entails it. It could be "evil" in the colloquial sense. But really I think of it as being more outside of the realm of morality in the way we think about it.

@PrinceLuenLeoncur @JasGews69x
 
  • JFL
  • Woah
Reactions: Node, Debetro and imontheloose
Deist


Im not religious, I just believe in pure act as rationality strongly entails it. It could be "evil" in the colloquial sense. But really I think of it as being more outside of the realm of morality in the way we think about it.

@PrinceLuenLeoncur @JasGews69x
Rationale doesn’t imply you’re right.
 
  • +1
Reactions: wishIwasSalludon
  • +1
  • Hmm...
Reactions: Orka and subhuman1996
Raped by my 11 page doc on the problem of evil. @SlayerJonas
Pro-argument vs pro-argument, I've thought about the man on the cliff's theory as well
 
  • +1
Reactions: wishIwasSalludon and imontheloose
  • +1
Reactions: SlayerJonas and wishIwasSalludon
Rationale doesn’t imply you’re right.
elaborate

at the very least we can say Aristotle's pure act is most likely true. In the post I assume things like infinite regresses as well as an eternal universe are possible.
 
  • +1
Reactions: imontheloose
elaborate

at the very least we can say Aristotle's pure act is most likely true. In the post I assume things like infinite regresses as well as an eternal universe are possible.
Them two assumptions are unlikely events in physics. Can’t you deny change in the name of mereological nihilism? I really don’t feel convinced by this.
 
  • +1
Reactions: wishIwasSalludon
Can’t you deny change in the name of mereological nihilism?
Simples still exist in mereological nihilism. Arbitrary arrangements of simples undergo change so simples undergo change as well.
 
  • Woah
Reactions: imontheloose
DNR
 
  • JFL
  • +1
Reactions: Debetro, JasGews69x, wishIwasSalludon and 1 other person
Raped by my 11 page doc on the problem of evil. @SlayerJonas
The problem of evil adds attributes to a potential God

I'm sure there are a ton of regurgitated argument chains I need to catch up to, so what would u say about the contingency argument
 
  • +1
Reactions: imontheloose
Simples still exist in mereological nihilism. Arbitrary arrangements of simples undergo change so simples undergo change as well.
True, but where is the line of change? A change of state, name…? What what Aristotle referring to? It’s important.
 
  • +1
Reactions: wishIwasSalludon
Blud is just getting to the Reiner reveal in AOT:feelsshh:
Blew my frickin mind! I read all the spoilers a few weeks ago but I forgot about it (thanks to my insomnia) so it completely blew my mind! Most epic reveal ever. In any media. What did you think of AoT?
 
The problem of evil adds attributes to a potential God

I'm sure there are a ton of regurgitated argument chains I need to catch up to, so what would u say about the contingency argument
The problem makes the idea of God unlikely, at least the contemporary God.

Contingency argument is an outdated argument and not even my favourite pro-God argument.
 
  • +1
Reactions: SlayerJonas
I was familiar with the contingency argument but never excepted its conclusion because I didnt see why the universe couldnt just be eternal, or say there be some sort of big bang, big crunch cycle.

This argument however is different, I have been engaging with classical philosophy more while I heard of it I never payed much attention to it. I got iq mogged by this Greek manlet called Aristotle who lived

I recently took to reading more about the Greeks and came across Aristotle's argument from motion. I've been contemplating it for over a month and cant come up with a reasonable objection.

As far as I can tell the moment you accept the first premise its over. But no one reasonable denies the first premise obviously change occurs.
View attachment 4165517

I came up with 3 objections all of which failed under scrutiny. I always came to the conclusion that Aristotle is most likely correct.

1.
Immediately after reading the argument my initial objection was positing that a potential actualizes itself. I felt embarrassed having thought this because if you just think about it for more than a second you realize this is a retarded objection. For a potential to actualize itself it would have to be actual which is the very thing we are questioning.

2.
The second and maybe the most intuitive example is to posit that there is an infinite number of actualities which then actualize other potentialities. This avoids the problem of a potential actualizing itself in the same respect. Each actualization of a potential is being actualized by an actuality in a different respect so it avoids the problem.

Aristotle addresses this in his argument but lets just say that hes wrong for the sake of argument. Its not just enough to posit something we need to think about whether its likely. We could posit the idea that that the universe was created by a dalit farting after eating expired curry. This would sufficiently explain the universe and yet no one would accept it for obvious reasons.

We need to ask the same question here, is this likely to be true? The answer is no because of occams razor. We arent just multiplying entities beyond necessity we are multiplying them infinitely. That is why I rejected this possibility even if we reject Aristotle's objection to it.

3.
a)
At this point I was getting desperate so then what if we just deny the PSR? After thinking I found this problematic for several reasons. First off if we deny the PSR a whole new scenario is possible. Our perceptual states causing us to believing anything could be occurring for no reason at all so you cant even give a reason for the PSR being false. So it would seem that to deny the PSR you would also have to accept the PSR.

b)
The second reason is even if the PSR is false it would seem that violations of the PSR are incredibly unlikely. There is no example you can given which strictly violates the PSR. At best you can give an example of the strong PSR being violated but even that is suspect as there are deterministic interpretations of QM. So violations of the PSR seem to be unlikely so all we have done by denying the PSR is go from "there is a 100% chance of actus purus" to "there is a 99% chance of actus purus". Its not exactly a robust objection. It suffers the exact same problem as objection 2.

c) There's also the problem of the burden of proof. As induction points heavily to the PSR being true so that places the burden of proof on the deniers of the PSR to show why the PSR is not true. But then the problem in objection A rears its head again. If the PSR is false you have no reason to trust your perceptual states, thus you cannot give a good reason for the PSR being false. As Alexander Pruss said "there is no demon deceiving you, instead your perceptual states are occurring for no reason at all".

So now we have to accept that Aristotle's pure act most likely exist. But who says this pure act is intelligent? Sure it exists but if its not even conscious you cant really call it "God". But thinking about it more Occam's razor would suggest this pure act has intent as if it didnt it would have had to create a VERY large amount of universes for us to be here.

So it would seem that this being has 3 properties at least. It is immaterial, intelligent and it is actus purus(pure act) it has no potentiality it is unchanging.

@imontheloose @SlayerJonas @Mainlander
Talking about PSR presupposes it so denying it is absurd and impossible
 
  • +1
Reactions: wishIwasSalludon and JasGews69x
  • JFL
Reactions: wishIwasSalludon and imontheloose
  • +1
Reactions: John6Enjoyer
True, but where is the line of change? A change of state, name…? What what Aristotle referring to? It’s important.
In the sense me and Aristotle are using it. It is in the sense that an object goes from a potential to an actuality.
 
  • Woah
Reactions: imontheloose
In the sense me and Aristotle are using it. It is in the sense that an object goes from a potential to an actuality.
That’s an incel definition. Aristotle would be a looksmax.org user today.
 
  • JFL
Reactions: wishIwasSalludon
This is a good cosmological argument, so much so that Aquinas put it as his biggest argument for the existence of a God at the least. I would encourage you to look into his five ways, they expand very nicely on the Aristotelian arguments and show different ways to use this reasoning to reach the same conclusion.

Now you just need to school yourself on apologetics and decide which God you trust, I would say the only God whose claim could have been falsified would be a good place to start.
 
That’s an incel definition. Aristotle would be a looksmax.org user today.
If the statue of him is accurate he seems decently attractive. His manletism would be an smv killed tho
 
  • +1
Reactions: imontheloose
I was familiar with the contingency argument but never excepted its conclusion because I didnt see why the universe couldnt just be eternal, or say there be some sort of big bang, big crunch cycle.

This argument however is different, I have been engaging with classical philosophy more while I heard of it I never payed much attention to it. I got iq mogged by this Greek manlet called Aristotle who lived

I recently took to reading more about the Greeks and came across Aristotle's argument from motion. I've been contemplating it for over a month and cant come up with a reasonable objection.

As far as I can tell the moment you accept the first premise its over. But no one reasonable denies the first premise obviously change occurs.
View attachment 4165517

I came up with 3 objections all of which failed under scrutiny. I always came to the conclusion that Aristotle is most likely correct.

1.
Immediately after reading the argument my initial objection was positing that a potential actualizes itself. I felt embarrassed having thought this because if you just think about it for more than a second you realize this is a retarded objection. For a potential to actualize itself it would have to be actual which is the very thing we are questioning.

2.
The second and maybe the most intuitive example is to posit that there is an infinite number of actualities which then actualize other potentialities. This avoids the problem of a potential actualizing itself in the same respect. Each actualization of a potential is being actualized by an actuality in a different respect so it avoids the problem.

Aristotle addresses this in his argument but lets just say that hes wrong for the sake of argument. Its not just enough to posit something we need to think about whether its likely. We could posit the idea that that the universe was created by a dalit farting after eating expired curry. This would sufficiently explain the universe and yet no one would accept it for obvious reasons.

We need to ask the same question here, is this likely to be true? The answer is no because of occams razor. We arent just multiplying entities beyond necessity we are multiplying them infinitely. That is why I rejected this possibility even if we reject Aristotle's objection to it.

3.
a)
At this point I was getting desperate so then what if we just deny the PSR? After thinking I found this problematic for several reasons. First off if we deny the PSR a whole new scenario is possible. Our perceptual states causing us to believing anything could be occurring for no reason at all so you cant even give a reason for the PSR being false. So it would seem that to deny the PSR you would also have to accept the PSR.

b)
The second reason is even if the PSR is false it would seem that violations of the PSR are incredibly unlikely. There is no example you can given which strictly violates the PSR. At best you can give an example of the strong PSR being violated but even that is suspect as there are deterministic interpretations of QM. So violations of the PSR seem to be unlikely so all we have done by denying the PSR is go from "there is a 100% chance of actus purus" to "there is a 99% chance of actus purus". Its not exactly a robust objection. It suffers the exact same problem as objection 2.

c) There's also the problem of the burden of proof. As induction points heavily to the PSR being true so that places the burden of proof on the deniers of the PSR to show why the PSR is not true. But then the problem in objection A rears its head again. If the PSR is false you have no reason to trust your perceptual states, thus you cannot give a good reason for the PSR being false. As Alexander Pruss said "there is no demon deceiving you, instead your perceptual states are occurring for no reason at all".

So now we have to accept that Aristotle's pure act most likely exist. But who says this pure act is intelligent? Sure it exists but if its not even conscious you cant really call it "God". But thinking about it more Occam's razor would suggest this pure act has intent as if it didnt it would have had to create a VERY large amount of universes for us to be here.

So it would seem that this being has 3 properties at least. It is immaterial, intelligent and it is actus purus(pure act) it has no potentiality it is unchanging.

@imontheloose @SlayerJonas @Mainlander
Please just do a tldr do you believe in god yes or no and have you become Christian or chasing some other cope
 
  • JFL
Reactions: wishIwasSalludon
  • +1
Reactions: iblamexyz
Deist


Im not religious, I just believe in pure act as rationality strongly entails it. It could be "evil" in the colloquial sense. But really I think of it as being more outside of the realm of morality in the way we think about it.

@PrinceLuenLeoncur @JasGews69x
Pure act is idiotic as it doesn’t have any personal properties or attributes this is pure stoicism from Marcus are Arelius level shit.


You believe in a THING now a who you believe in a WHAT, an IT a being that can’t even truly be called a being but a monster. It’s the worst form of God even Hinduism is more coherent and less terrifying. Deists and people like you worry me

Anyways ironically Aristotle would had been a Christian and in our theology it states he was the first man to convert to the relgion when Jesus went back the Hades


He believed that there is a God and that god isn’t a what but an Who but didn’t know WHO THAT GOD WAS Paul on the Bible even speaks of the Greeks as the preeminent gentiles due to this shit.

So yes aritstotoe did get some things right and others wrong
 
Last edited:
  • JFL
Reactions: wishIwasSalludon
I was familiar with the contingency argument but never excepted its conclusion because I didnt see why the universe couldnt just be eternal, or say there be some sort of big bang, big crunch cycle.

This argument however is different, I have been engaging with classical philosophy more while I heard of it I never payed much attention to it. I got iq mogged by this Greek manlet called Aristotle who lived

I recently took to reading more about the Greeks and came across Aristotle's argument from motion. I've been contemplating it for over a month and cant come up with a reasonable objection.

As far as I can tell the moment you accept the first premise its over. But no one reasonable denies the first premise obviously change occurs.
View attachment 4165517

I came up with 3 objections all of which failed under scrutiny. I always came to the conclusion that Aristotle is most likely correct.

1.
Immediately after reading the argument my initial objection was positing that a potential actualizes itself. I felt embarrassed having thought this because if you just think about it for more than a second you realize this is a retarded objection. For a potential to actualize itself it would have to be actual which is the very thing we are questioning.

2.
The second and maybe the most intuitive example is to posit that there is an infinite number of actualities which then actualize other potentialities. This avoids the problem of a potential actualizing itself in the same respect. Each actualization of a potential is being actualized by an actuality in a different respect so it avoids the problem.

Aristotle addresses this in his argument but lets just say that hes wrong for the sake of argument. Its not just enough to posit something we need to think about whether its likely. We could posit the idea that that the universe was created by a dalit farting after eating expired curry. This would sufficiently explain the universe and yet no one would accept it for obvious reasons.

We need to ask the same question here, is this likely to be true? The answer is no because of occams razor. We arent just multiplying entities beyond necessity we are multiplying them infinitely. That is why I rejected this possibility even if we reject Aristotle's objection to it.

3.
a)
At this point I was getting desperate so then what if we just deny the PSR? After thinking I found this problematic for several reasons. First off if we deny the PSR a whole new scenario is possible. Our perceptual states causing us to believing anything could be occurring for no reason at all so you cant even give a reason for the PSR being false. So it would seem that to deny the PSR you would also have to accept the PSR.

b)
The second reason is even if the PSR is false it would seem that violations of the PSR are incredibly unlikely. There is no example you can given which strictly violates the PSR. At best you can give an example of the strong PSR being violated but even that is suspect as there are deterministic interpretations of QM. So violations of the PSR seem to be unlikely so all we have done by denying the PSR is go from "there is a 100% chance of actus purus" to "there is a 99% chance of actus purus". Its not exactly a robust objection. It suffers the exact same problem as objection 2.

c) There's also the problem of the burden of proof. As induction points heavily to the PSR being true so that places the burden of proof on the deniers of the PSR to show why the PSR is not true. But then the problem in objection A rears its head again. If the PSR is false you have no reason to trust your perceptual states, thus you cannot give a good reason for the PSR being false. As Alexander Pruss said "there is no demon deceiving you, instead your perceptual states are occurring for no reason at all".

So now we have to accept that Aristotle's pure act most likely exist. But who says this pure act is intelligent? Sure it exists but if its not even conscious you cant really call it "God". But thinking about it more Occam's razor would suggest this pure act has intent as if it didnt it would have had to create a VERY large amount of universes for us to be here.

So it would seem that this being has 3 properties at least. It is immaterial, intelligent and it is actus purus(pure act) it has no potentiality it is unchanging.

@imontheloose @SlayerJonas @Mainlander
dnr but I’m ngl, if ur reasoning for believing god has to do with arguments from more than a century ago, you’re out of touch NGL

and I’m saying this as a catholic
 
  • JFL
Reactions: wishIwasSalludon
dnr but I’m ngl, if ur reasoning for believing god has to do with arguments from more than a century ago, you’re out of touch NGL

and I’m saying this as a catholic
The rationality of the argument is what matters not how old it is
 
  • Hmm...
Reactions: 5'7" 3/4s
  • +1
Reactions: wishIwasSalludon
Pure act is idiotic as it doesn’t have any personal properties or attributes this is pure stoicism from Marcus are Arelius level shit.


You believe in a THING now a who you believe in a WHAT, an IT a being that can’t even truly be called a being but a monster. It’s the worst form of God even Hinduism is more coherent and less terrifying. Deists and people like you worry me

Anyways ironically Aristotle would had been a Christian and in our theology it states he was the first man to convert to the relgion when Jesus went back the Hades


He believed that there is a God and that god isn’t a what but an Who but didn’t know WHO THAT GOD WAS Paul on the Bible even speaks of the Greeks as the preeminent gentiles due to this shit.

So yes aritstotoe did get some things right and others wrong
Pure act just means Gods nature is unchanging, which the Bible literally says.

God does not have potential he is unchanging and has an eternal nature.
 

Similar threads

wishIwasSalludon
Replies
5
Views
132
wishIwasSalludon
wishIwasSalludon
idnap
Replies
8
Views
369
kmd
kmd
Shrek2OnDvD
Replies
88
Views
1K
PrinceLuenLeoncur
PrinceLuenLeoncur
mirinturbolowinhib
Replies
123
Views
1K
ngannou
N

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top