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

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

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

He is a PaGAYan and is a Deist


He’s onto one devotion above Gaytheists he’s in the same realm as those spiritualists and agnostics all fucking idiots but agnostics tbf I put above all the others simply due to their belief being due to uncertainty

 

[wishIwasSalludon]

He is a PaGAYan and is a Deist


He’s onto one devotion above Gaytheists he’s in the same realm as those spiritualists and agnostics all fucking idiots but agnostics tbf I put above all the others simply due to their belief being due to uncertainty

I’m not pagan

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

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.

Pure act? What is this actus puris Roman Catholic shit?

You realise the big issues with god being pure act right?

If it’s pure act then anything is constant never changing and once again your god is a WHAT an IT an THING that does stuff without any control for it has none for it is more like an automated AI it’s quite sad and very depressing to think about it it’s honestly the worst type of god you could have

Id even rather believe in an evil demon God before that shit it’s torture and the dirty doesn’t even have the personal properties to feel or understand anything he’s a slave to himself

Anyways whatever I can’t help you lol if you wanna be a Deist or pagan or whatever so be it welcome to life

 

[Debetro]

Delusional if you're not atheist

 

[wishIwasSalludon]

Pure act? What is this actus puris Roman Catholic shit?

You realise the big issues with god being pure act right?

If it’s pure act then anything is constant never changing and once again your god is a WHAT an IT an THING that does stuff without any control for it has none for it is more like an automated AI it’s quite sad and very depressing to think about it it’s honestly the worst type of god you could have

Id even rather believe in an evil demon God before that shit it’s torture and the dirty doesn’t even have the personal properties to feel or understand anything he’s a slave to himself

Anyways whatever I can’t help you lol if you wanna be a Deist or pagan or whatever so be it welcome to life

God = pure act according to the Bible bro

What Does the Bible Say About How God Never Changes?

Bible verses about How God Never Changes

www.openbible.info

And pure act doesn’t mean God doesn’t have will. Gods willing something into creation doesn’t indicate a change in God but a change in the potential of the creation from non existence to existence.

Nothing about Gods nature is changing here.

God created the world out of freewill according to Aristotle himself

https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/16/1/52

 

[Debetro]

God created the world out of freewill according to Aristotle himself

https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/16/1/52

You need to realize we are smarter than aristotle, kant and all of those wankers

 

[wishIwasSalludon]

You need to realize we are smarter than aristotle, kant and all of those wankers

Cope

 

[Debetro]

Cope

You're so aaahhhhhh

Just admit you have no answer

A creator can't spawn out of nowhere

 

[wishIwasSalludon]

You're so aaahhhhhh

Just admit you have no answer

A creator can't spawn out of nowhere

“Lemme just copy and paste” ahh response

 

[Debetro]

“Lemme just copy and paste” ahh response

Spirituality (only nisargadatta qnd mahairhisi) mogs atheism atheism mogs religion

 

[beckyslayer191]

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

Valid reason

 

[Debetro]

ignorance is bliss, deism turbo mogs atheism, living in a more poor country turbo mogs, living in an overpopulated place turbo mogs, living on hot weather mogs, living without any access to internet mogs to the stratosphere. Im infinitely mirin

 

[5'7" 3/4s]

This is literally my argument, what the fuck?

 

[5'7" 3/4s]

I’m dumbfounded

 

[wishIwasSalludon]

ignorance is bliss, deism turbo mogs atheism, living in a more poor country turbo mogs, living in an overpopulated place turbo mogs, living on hot weather mogs, living without any access to internet mogs to the stratosphere. Im infinitely mirin

“Buy one get one free” ahh reply

 

[5'7" 3/4s]

For le determinism?

Are you a super determinist?

 

[imontheloose]

Are you a super determinist?

No. I’m a soft determinist as it doesn’t require invoking faith unlike hard determinism.

 

[5'7" 3/4s]

my friend came up with a similar argument to this a couple years ago using the PSR and quantum mechanics that I tried to disprove relentlessly but couldn’t, I had the same reaction as u back then, esp regarding the burden of proof. That’s a major reason as to why I’m catholic now ngl

 

[wishIwasSalludon]

my friend came up with a similar argument to this a couple years ago using the PSR and quantum mechanics that I tried to disprove relentlessly but couldn’t, I had the same reaction as u back then, esp regarding the burden of proof. That’s a major reason as to why I’m catholic now ngl

Yea the biggest problem for my atheism was it’s not just enough to come up with an objection to Aristotles argument you also have show why it’s more likely.

Even if we accept them as possibilities we still conclude God lost likely exists

 

[Debetro]

“Buy one get one free” ahh reply
View attachment 4166011
View attachment 4166013

God is for people who want easy simple answers.
The real world is far more complex and difficult to understand.

 

[5'7" 3/4s]

Yea the biggest problem for my atheism was it’s not just enough to come up with an objection to Aristotles argument you also have show why it’s more likely.

Even if we accept them as possibilities we still conclude God lost likely exists

now involve causality and consciousness and induce which religion is true(most likely)

 

[wishIwasSalludon]

now involve causality and consciousness and induce which religion is true(most likely)

Probably either Islam or Christianity. But it seems more likely that God isn’t interested in humans based on just observing the world.

Like Aristotle I don’t believe in this personal God that wants to interact with humanity or anything.

 

[Debetro]

Probably either Islam or Christianity. But it seems more likely that God isn’t interested in humans based on just observing the world.

Like Aristotle I don’t believe in this personal God that wants to interact with humanity or anything.

Turn to annallah and discover the truth silly deist

 

[wishIwasSalludon]

Turn to annallah and discover the truth silly deist

Allah akbar!

 

[wishIwasSalludon]

God is for people who want easy simple answers.
The real world is far more complex and difficult to understand.

Deism mogs coper

 

[wishIwasSalludon]

my friend came up with a similar argument to this a couple years ago using the PSR and quantum mechanics that I tried to disprove relentlessly but couldn’t, I had the same reaction as u back then, esp regarding the burden of proof. That’s a major reason as to why I’m catholic now ngl

Ur friend sounds high iq

 

[5'7" 3/4s]

Ur friend sounds high iq

he was tested like 142 or something

Probably either Islam or Christianity. But it seems more likely that God isn’t interested in humans based on just observing the world.

Like Aristotle I don’t believe in this personal God that wants to interact with humanity or anything.

Think about the mind body gap though, use the logic u used in regards to QM and the burden proof, just in this context, you know now that until further proof is brought up we can deduce that consciousness has to have came from a God

Abrahamic Religions are the only ones that have explained the concept of free will and consciousness and it’s literally the whole premise of Christianity

Now if you’re a determinist that’s another thing,

 

[wishIwasSalludon]

he was tested like 142 or something


Think about the mind body gap though, use the logic u used in regards to QM and the burden proof, just in this context, you know now that until further proof is brought up we can deduce that consciousness has to have came from a God

Abrahamic Religions are the only ones that have explained the concept of free will and consciousness and it’s literally the whole premise of Christianity

Now if you’re a determinist that’s another thing,

I’m a soft determinist. I’m not a substance dualist either.

 

[Acquiescence]

Not looking to debate and won’t be responding further so dnr if you wish but I just want to throw in my knee jerk brainlet atheist 2 cents:

1. There’s nothing wrong with an infinite regress

2. Even if there was, how the absolute hell is ascribing all these traits and qualities (immaterial, intelligent, intent, power, being, etc) to a proposed “ultimate first uncaused cause” of the universe simpler / more likely (as per that precious Occam’s razor) than just admitting we don’t know anything beyond the Big Bang????????? And that if there truly has to be some sort of ultimate sole beginning, it would most likely / simply be that which already comprises everything - matter, energy, spacetime, etc? After all, what else is there that we can measure / observe / test?

No need to tack on more assumptions than need be my man (which is pretty much just those needed to hold a productive conversation / construct a coherent worldview - the laws of logic, the existence of an external world, etc - to avoid a collapse into absurdity or radical skepticism or solipsism and so on)

 

[Vazelrr]

Not looking to debate and won’t be responding further so dnr if you wish but I just want to throw in my knee jerk brainlet atheist 2 cents:

1. There’s nothing wrong with an infinite regress

2. Even if there was, how the absolute hell is ascribing all these traits and qualities (immaterial, intelligent, intent, power, being, etc) to a proposed “ultimate first uncaused cause” of the universe simpler / more likely (as per that precious Occam’s razor) than just admitting we don’t know anything beyond the Big Bang????????? And that if there truly has to be some sort of ultimate sole beginning, it would most likely / simply be that which already comprises everything - matter, energy, spacetime, etc? After all, what else is there that we can measure / observe / test?

No need to tack on more assumptions than need be my man (which is pretty much just those needed to hold a productive conversation / construct a coherent worldview - the laws of logic, the existence of an external world, etc - to avoid a collapse into absurdity or radical skepticism or solipsism and so on)

Ah, the classic infinite regress defense. Let me sharpen this for you infinite regress isn’t an explanation it’s a dodge. Saying “the universe just exists, infinitely or as matter/energy/spacetime” is just kicking the can down the line. It doesn’t remove the question, it buries it under more assumptions, all unexamined.
As for Occam’s razor simplicity doesn’t mean denying evidence of order, purpose, or intelligibility. You’ve got a finely tuned cosmos, laws of physics that allow life, and constants that scream design and your “simplest explanation” is literally “don’t think, just assume chaos”? That’s not simplicity, that’s laziness.If you truly want coherence, start with what explains why there is something rather than nothing, why the universe is intelligible, and why morality exists,Hint: a mind capable of reason, intelligence, and intent God fits the evidence far better than an eternal, mindless soup of matter.

Infinite regress doesn’t solve anything. It’s just the intellectual equivalent of retreating behind a wall and hoping no one notices your empire is undefended.

 

[wishIwasSalludon]

1. There’s nothing wrong with an infinite regress

I addressed that in the post. I showed even if we accept an infinite regress is possible it still fails

Even if there was, how the absolute hell is ascribing all these traits and qualities (immaterial, intelligent, intent, power, being, etc) to a proposed

A material thing can’t be pure act they have potentiality by definition. I explained why it has intent as well.

“ultimate first uncaused cause” of the universe simpler / more likely

We are talking about motions not causes in the colloquial sense

an eternal universe would still involve an infinite regress of potentiality and actuality which is problematic as I already explained.

I formulated this argument under the assumption that infinite regresses and eternal universes are possible. But we still arrive at the conclusion God exists because these possibilities are unlikely.