Anything's existence shows God's existence

Since things can't be uncaused, and there can't be an infinite regression of past sources, there must be a definite, single source which is itself not uncaused.

The only way a thing can not be uncaused, and yet require no other thing to be its source, is if its existence is required by the laws of logic, much as nothing needed to cause 1+1 to =2.

As nothing alterable or rearrangeable would exist at the beginning, the only way for this thing to be able cause other things is if it had the ability to bring things into existence from nothing (i.e. not rearranging things to make other things but bringing things into existence wholecloth). As creation of this sort does not depend on the parts of the thing to be made, there is nothing that a thing that can create in this way cannot create. Thus omnipotence.

The only thing to cause this thing to, itself, cause other things would be some internal drive to increase some value. Otherwise nothing would cause it to act and so it would take no actions. As a being required to exist by the laws of logic, all of its essential properties would be a result of the laws of logic, including this desire, and so it would always have this desire to increase that value no matter what. Thus it would have maximum possible desire for the increase of this value. All things would exist for the purpose of this value. Thus this value would be the Good.

Thus this being which is required by the laws of logic to exist would always be guaranteed to have maximum ability and maximum desire to increase the Good.

No better being than that is possible, by definition.

QED from the fact anything exists, the best possible being exists.

Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68

UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68

Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68

  1. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Causality is a local phenomenon. Your brain evolved to correspond with its environment so you assume that ALL of existence adheres to these rules, which is just a leap of faith.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      Why do some things happen and others don't?

      >Since things can't be uncaused,
      Laughs in Mandela effect.

      The Mandela Effect is just people misremembering things my man, do you have an instance of it that you think offers strong support for uncaused objects or events?

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        > Why do some things happen and others don't
        that’s just the way it issss

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          >that’s just the way it issss
          I think you're beginning to see the problem with your idea. Without causality, a thing needs nothing before it can happen. So the criteria for a thing happening would be met for all things, and so everything would happen, everywhere, all the time, constantly. It would not be possible to have coherent observations at all.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            And I do mean this in the most extreme interpretation possible: all possible objects and all possible events in all possible combinations at all possible points of space in all possible points of time with all possible events happening to them.

            ...Interestingly that actually makes an ontological argument for the existence of God since this would mean that if it is even possible for an omnipotent being to exist, then that would be one of the objects and presumably he would go "wtf man this is nuts" and impose order on it.

            So if you're right, then we're both right lol.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Congratulations

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            This exact universe is a possibility, so it MUST exist, and we are currently experiencing it. It doesn’t matter how “improbable” it is.

            As for God, yes, he is a possibility. The problem is that God’s non-existence is also a possibility. So there are universes with Gods and universes without Gods. There are Gods that rule over whole multiverses, and Gods above them, and so on, to infinity. Some of these Gods understand that they aren’t actually the God of everything, others are ignorant and they they’re omnipotent and omniscient when they were actually just given their own little sandbox realm which doesn’t affect all the other realms. It’s a bit odd to even say that they “exist” because we can’t interact with them. Though perhaps we can interact with the low-level multiverse that shares our laws of physics.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >This exact universe is a possibility, so it MUST exist, and we are currently experiencing it. It doesn’t matter how “improbable” it is.
            I don't see how this relates to what I said

            >The problem is that God’s non-existence is also a possibility.
            This is disproven in the OP, is it not?

            >Some of these Gods
            The being in the OP would be omnipotent and you can't have multiple omnipotent beings; otherwise, what would happen if each one attempted something contradictory?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            > I don't see how this relates to what I said
            you don’t see random things happening because those random things are happening in other universes. We happen to live in one of the infinite universes in which random things do not happen. Or at least, we don’t notice them.
            > This is disproven in the OP, is it not?
            only in universes in which all of the premises are true, and not just faulty assumptions (which is also a possibility)
            > The being in the OP would be omnipotent and you can't have multiple omnipotent beings; otherwise, what would happen if each one attempted something contradictory?
            Like I said, they have their own realms and do not know of each other’s existence. Only the God that rules over both of those realms is able to know of the existence of those realms simultaneously

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >you don’t see random things happening because those random things are happening in other universes
            A lack of causality wouldn't mean things would happen somewhere. There is no causality and so nothing to cause such a limitation.

            You would have all possible objects and all possible events in all possible combinations at all possible points of space in all possible points of time.

            >only in universes in which all of the premises are true
            All of the premises are true in all universe. The only premise is the law of non-contradiction and the existence of at least one thing, both of which you know for an absolute fact are true. (Clearly at least one thing exists since you're reading this)

            >Like I said, they have their own realms
            Nothing would be outside of an omnipotent being's reach. Trying to keep an omnipotent being out of a space is like trying to make a room where mathematics doesn't work. Differences in location have no bearing on these kinds of things

            >Only the God that rules over both of those realms is able to know of the existence of those realms simultaneously
            The entity described in the OP would rule over all possible realms, as it would be omnipotent.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            I won’t repeat myself any more. This conversation is boring now

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Good idea, you'll have more fun back on reddit

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            No, you're just moronic. You're the one who made it boring.

            Justify how a lower tier universe-maker, or universes with direct lower tier creators, doesn't ultimately trace back to an actual omnipotent being called God.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            I don't think this troony can be reasoned with.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            are you saying arguments should cause a person to reject the existence of causality? :DDD

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Why do some things happen and others don't?
        Things are determined to happen one way or another.

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          If they're determined that means there's causality my man, you're just calling it determination instead of causality

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Okay, but that doesn't necessitate an intelligent agent behind it.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            The OP argued that whatever caused everything else would, for it to ever actually do anything at all, need some sort of internal drive/desire to pursue a goal: there must be some value it was seeking to increase by taking its action of causing things. Obviously its mind would be very different from our's, but that would be intelligence. It could accurately be said to want something and to be acting towards that goal

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >the bump in the night and furniture settling had to be caused by an intelligence

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah, ultimately: either directly (someone in your house ö) or indirectly (the creator made laws of physics that lead to the furniture contradicting as temperature dropped at night and so making a noise)

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Causality is a local phenomenon
      source : my leap of faith

      lmao get fricked by your own sentence b***h don't play big boy you don't have the brain

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      >infinite universes exist
      nice leap of faith you got there

  2. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Go with Goddess. She'll never let you down.

  3. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Since things can't be uncaused,
    Laughs in Mandela effect.

  4. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Since things can't be uncaused
    What caused God?

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      Couldn't even read the entire first sentence huh

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        I did. It doesn't answer my question.

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          >there must be a definite, single source which is itself not uncaused.
          Next sentence:
          >The only way a thing can not be uncaused, and yet require no other thing to be its source, is if its existence is required by the laws of logic

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >The only way a thing can not be uncaused, and yet require no other thing to be its source, is if its existence is required by the laws of logic
            1. "can not be uncaused" means "can be caused." So does it apply to all things or only to some?????????
            2. That God necessarily exists from the laws of logic has yet to be proven (Spoiler: not a single actual logician has proved it, so Oyish amateur theologians definitely won't).

            The causal proof of God is a permanent fixture in philosophy and was vouched as sufficient by a theist skeptic like Aristotle.

            That's nice and all, but what caused this permanent fixture in philosophy and was vouched as sufficient by a theist skeptic like Aristotle?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            You seem bright enough so you'll figure it out like we have.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            I'm too intelligent to figure out textbook contradictions. Can you help me out?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            if they had proven God with these arguments, then everyone would be believers. It’s a waste of time

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >1. "can not be uncaused" means "can be caused." So does it apply to all things or only to some?????????
            What is "it"? Some things exist or are true because the laws of logic themselves make them that way, some things exist or are true because other things make them that way.

            >That God necessarily exists from the laws of logic has yet to be proven
            See the OP my man. Such a thing is the only way to have anything exist at all.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >What is "it"?
            That things are caused. First you say all things are caused then that only some can be caused. Like what the frick???

            >See the OP my man. Such a thing is the only way to have anything exist at all.
            Says who?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >First you say all things are caused then that only some can be caused.
            When did I say only some things can be caused?

            >Says who?
            The OP

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >When did I say only some things can be caused?
            Right here:
            >The only way a thing can not be uncaused, and yet require no other thing to be its source, is if its existence is required by the laws of logic, much as nothing needed to cause 1+1 to =2.
            >The only way a thing can not be uncaused

            >The OP
            a.k.a. "Source: I made it up"

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >The only way a thing can not be uncaused
            As you yourself said, this is functionally equivalent to saying "caused"

            >is if its existence is required by the laws of logic
            Obviously such a thing wouldn't be uncaused, it would be caused to exist by the fact that its nonexistence would be a contradiction

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >As you yourself said, this is functionally equivalent to saying "caused"
            No, this is equivalent to "can be caused." Am I witnessing another episode of Christians-cant-read?

            >Obviously such a thing wouldn't be uncaused, it would be caused to exist by the fact that its nonexistence would be a contradiction
            This contradicts all arguments for God by necessity/contingence, but whatev.

            >a.k.a. "Source: I made it up"
            Arguments involving pure logic don't need sources mate, they aren't discussing any information that isn't immediately accessible to the reader

            >Arguments involving pure logic don't need sources mate
            True. They need pure logic, which the OP doesn't contain.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >a.k.a. "Source: I made it up"
            Arguments involving pure logic don't need sources mate, they aren't discussing any information that isn't immediately accessible to the reader

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          The causal proof of God is a permanent fixture in philosophy and was vouched as sufficient by a theist skeptic like Aristotle.

  5. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    > things can't be uncaused
    That’s like saying unicorns can’t exist because you’ve never seen one. And you call this “logic”

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Since things can't be uncaused
      I'm gunna have to stop you right there

      Have we ever observed something uncaused, or are the totality of our observations of cause and effect?

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        Doesn’t matter. You’re not making a logical deduction. That’s induction. Read Hume. Your whole argument rests on faith

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          I can have as much "faith" in it if it matches the totality of our observation as I can that the sun will rise tomorrow. So we'll see if it's a good approach in the morning.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        >observed
        Observation comes from the senses which are unreliable and faulty, as demonstrated by reason.

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          See

          I can have as much "faith" in it if it matches the totality of our observation as I can that the sun will rise tomorrow. So we'll see if it's a good approach in the morning.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Did you even read what I wrote? The senses are faulty and wrong. You're basing your argument on something false.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Do you believe the sun will set today?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            I believe that's what my senses tell me. That's not the same thing as it actually happening in reality.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Tonight you'll see that what I'm saying works when the sun does go down.
            Then you'll see that I'm able to accurately predict what your senses will be telling you at later points in time.

            Another thing they'll be telling you at a later point in time: just as surely as your senses will tell you sun has gone down and come back up, they will tell you that you are going down to death, and then they will tell you that you've been brought back up. And then they'll tell you that God exists.
            Whether they then tell you that you are being exalted up or being laid down depends on how well you heed this beforehand.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            You're completely missing the point. I'm trying to tell you that the world you experience through the senses isn't true reality.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            What is true reality?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            True reality is one, eternal, and unchanging.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Aren't ya just talking about God?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            No I'm talking about the universe. I'm not a pantheist.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            How can the universe be unchanging if I'm part of the universe and I change?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            That's the thing, you don't. Your senses make it seem like you do but you really don't.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Aren't my senses part of the universe?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >part of
            The universe has no parts. That's what I meant when I said reality is one.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            The B theory of time still doesn't resolve the issue of contingent facts, moron. We know your games.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            I don't know what any of that means, I'm just telling you the universe is one (IE it has no parts/distinctions).

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            The universe contains my senses, doesn't it?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            The universe can't "contain" anything because that implies parts.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Well where am I, then?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            You're in the only place you could be, the universe.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            And my experiences are changing so if I'm in the universe then the universe contains change.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >my experiences are changing
            And you know that how?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            I experience it

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            No you don't. All you experience is the present while change involves the past and future.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            I do experience it

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            You experience the past? What kind of superpower is that?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            I do experience the transition from moment to moment yes

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            You only experience the present moment, that's it.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            ...no I don't? I experience it as a flow.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            What do you think the present means? You can't experience the past as it's already happened and you can't experience the future because it hasn't happened yet. Thus you only experience the present.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            I experience time as a flow, which requires change. I actively feel the change.
            Maybe something is wrong with your brain and you have an odd way of perceiving things because this is absolutely something I experience. You sound like a colorblind person trying to argue that the experience of color doesn't happen.

  6. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Since things can't be uncaused
    I'm gunna have to stop you right there

  7. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    >there can't be an infinite regression of past sources
    Why not?
    An infinite regress of past causes seems much more plausible than a self-causing cause.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      In literally what way. What problems do infinite regresses resolve that the Prime Mover does not?

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        >In literally what way
        Prime Mover requires causeless causes popping into existence without reason, and special pleading to explain why it doesn't need a cause. An infinite temporal regress of causes avoids all of that.

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Prime Mover requires causeless causes popping into existence
          Black person, are you moronic? The Prime Mover did not "pop" into existence. The Prime Mover IS existence itself, possessing the property of aseity. There has never been a state of affairs where the Prime Mover never existed.
          >An infinite temporal regress of causes avoids all of that.
          And how does it avoid it, Black person?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            The B theory of time still doesn't resolve the issue of contingent facts, moron. We know your games.

            Stop trying to defend God while using language like that, Proverbs 15:4 says "A gentle tongue is a tree of life". No one is going to form a positive opinion of the ideas you represent if you slinging insults like that around.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Not those guys, but you say that like the atheist schizos who spam and flood this board aren't mad and insane, you say that as if they can be reasoned with.

            There's no point being nice to these people, they'll just use it as an occasion to try taking away your rights. I'm talking about the real world now, not just dealing with the no-lifer atheist internet fedoras. I don't see anything wrong with calling them morons, because they are morons. Everyone who stands against God is a moron of the highest order, and they're insane too--it's insanity to rebel against God, they belong in padded rooms.

            It doesn't matter how nice and kind and silly you may be when dealing with the impenitent sinners and scoffers who hate God and blaspheme in every other post they make, they will never form a positive opinion about God or Jesus because they're sinning against God every day and they know it and they love their sin more than they love God. They will not repent. While pic related is a future event, you'd be naive to think there are none alive today who have the same attitude towards God. The only thing that will be wrought by you being nice and kind and giving these hell-bound perverts the benefit of the doubt is wasting your own time and energy on someone who gets kicks out of getting you to waste your time and energy. They're just trolls and they should frankly be banned so this board can actually be used to discuss topics in more depth that moronic quips made by idiots who get their religious education from cartoons made by Hollywood pedophiles and perverts.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            1 Peter 3:15 says to explain why you have the hope in God that you do with "meekness", calling people every slur and name in the book ain't it my man

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >The Prime Mover IS existence itself
            Does the statement "The Prime Mover of a nontrivial zero outside the critical line of the Riemann zeta function" make sense? No, it doesn't. Cut it with your moronic word salad and start actually trying to use words that have meaning, will you?

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      There can't be infinite past sources since actual infinites aren’t possible. They’re self-contradictions, and so can’t exist anymore than a colorless yellow fruit could.

      To illustrate the contradiction, let’s define an algorithm. At each iteration, we are going to place ten numbers in sequence in a group, and then remove the lowest number.

      So in the first iteration, we add the first ten numbers:
      [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10]

      And then remove the lowest number in the group. So the end result of the first iteration is:
      [2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10]

      We will repeat this process in the next iteration. So the end result of the second iteration is:
      [3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20]

      Now, if we were to repeat this algorithm an infinite number of times, how many numbers would be in our group?

      There would simultaneously be infinite numbers, and no numbers.

      Every specific number would be removed, yet at each iteration there would always be more numbers that had not been removed.
      There would be no number about which we could say “this one was not removed”. 1 was removed from the group in the first iteration, 2 was removed in the second iteration, 10 and 15 would have been removed in the tenth and fifteenth iterations, and so on. You could always say “this number was removed in that iteration”.
      Yet, not all the numbers can have been removed from the group. At each iteration, the amount of numbers in the group grows. It increases by ten, yet only one is removed, so at each iteration the amount of numbers that have been added is greater than the number destroyed - even more so than at the previous iterations. So after that is repeated infinitely, there would have to be an infinite amount of numbers in the group.

      So, simultaneously, every number has been removed, and yet there must be an infinite amount of numbers in the group.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        All you've shown is that there is *a* infinite series that is contradictory. Ok? I'm not sure what your point is. I can come up with a contradictory example of anything, including God. Show every single possible infinite series is contradictory, not just one.

        >Prime Mover requires causeless causes popping into existence
        Black person, are you moronic? The Prime Mover did not "pop" into existence. The Prime Mover IS existence itself, possessing the property of aseity. There has never been a state of affairs where the Prime Mover never existed.
        >An infinite temporal regress of causes avoids all of that.
        And how does it avoid it, Black person?

        >The Prime Mover IS existence itself, possessing the property of aseity.
        Which is special pleading. Everything that exists has a cause of it existing. I find an infinite regress of causes much more plausible and less a violation of common sense than special pleading for a causeless cause.

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Everything that exists has a cause of it existing
          Not the Prime Mover, though, which is the point.

          >The Prime Mover IS existence itself
          Does the statement "The Prime Mover of a nontrivial zero outside the critical line of the Riemann zeta function" make sense? No, it doesn't. Cut it with your moronic word salad and start actually trying to use words that have meaning, will you?

          Do you understand what aseity is? I'm not going to dumb down my language just to appease you, simian. The Prime Mover is the only entity that exists in and of itself. Everything else derives its existence from the Prime Mover.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Do you understand what aseity is?
            Yes. It doesn't mean "the Prime Mover is existence" is a true statement. How about you learn basic English before trying to have arguments online, little Danny?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >It doesn't mean "the Prime Mover is existence" is a true statement.
            Yes, it does, Black person. Stay seething, or refute me.

            >Not the Prime Mover, though, which is the point.
            Which is begging the question. I can define anything as having any property. The question is whether a being with such a property (causeless existence) is likely to exist. It seems very implausible and a violation of logic that anything that is a causeless cause could exist, whether you posit one or not.

            >Which is begging the question.
            Begging what question, moron? Can you even provide me with a coherent model of time that takes infinite regress into account? Don't talk to me about logical implausibility, pseud.

            You said that everything that exists has a cause extrinsic to itself, right? This is what is known as a contingent fact. Is there a contingent fact that possesses all other contingent facts? Obviously. Which means there must be a necessary fact that created this "super" contingent fact. Otherwise there is zero way to explain how you exist right now.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Can you even provide me with a coherent model of time that takes infinite regress into account?
            The problem of infinite regress is not having a "coherent model of time"

            >Which means there must be a necessary fact that created this "super" contingent fact.
            Or there's an infinite line of contingent facts. You still haven't explained why we must reject that and believe in an uncaused cause.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >The problem of infinite regress is not having a "coherent model of time"
            That's one of the problems, and an insurmountable one. Time ceases to exist without a beginning, just as numbers become meaningless without the number zero.
            >Or there's an infinite line of contingent facts. You still haven't explained why we must reject that and believe in an uncaused cause.
            You just refuted yourself, moron. Since you don't believe that things can exist without a cause, then what is the causal origin of this infinite chain of contingent facts?

            >refute me
            With utmost pleasure. Does the statement "The Prime Mover of a nontrivial zero of the Riemann zeta function outside the critical line has not been proven" make sense? No. Because the Prime Mover is not existence.

            >With utmost pleasure. Does the statement "The Prime Mover of a nontrivial zero of the Riemann zeta function outside the critical line has not been proven" make sense? No. Because the Prime Mover is not existence.
            Yes, it IS existence itself, because it is the only thing that exists in and of itself, and contains the explanation for its own existence within its own essence, rather than from an extrinsic source. Everything that exists currently derives its existence from the Prime Mover. Just sit the frick down, sophist.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Since you don't believe that things can exist without a cause, then what is the causal origin of this infinite chain of contingent facts?
            KEK you apparently don't even understand what "infinite" means. I'm out.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Nice concession, but you still have to answer. A chain of contingency doesn't just spawn out of fricking nowhere, even if it's infinite. YOU LITERALLY JUST SAID THAT YOU DON'T BELIEVE THINGS CAN EXIST WITHOUT A CAUSE, so either this chain of contingency has a causal origin, or just refuted yourself, Black person.

            Busted.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >A chain of contingency doesn't just spawn out of fricking nowhere, even if it's infinite
            Correct. It is spawned by the previous link in the chain, into infinity. Apparently I have to explain "infinity" to you.

            A four-sided triangle but you JUST poke the middle. Why is this a contradiction?

            So you can't explain why a series of integers from 1 to infinity is a contradiction without resorting to false analogies. OK.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Correct. It is spawned by the previous link in the chain, into infinity. Apparently I have to explain "infinity" to you.
            Forget about the individual contingent facts, I'm talking about the entire chain of contingency itself. Does this infinite chain of contingency have an intrinsic or extrinsic cause? There's a difference between a temporal origin, and a causal origin; I'm not asking you WHEN the chain started, but WHY it started. Read, idiot.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >I'm not asking you WHEN the chain started, but WHY it started
            This is a separate question from what we were discussing.
            In this thread we were discussing "what grounds contingent facts?" Both the uncaused cause and an infinite regress are answers to that question.
            You're now moving to the question "why is there something rather than nothing?" And no one knows why there would exist a universe rather than nothing existing at all, whether one posits an unmoved mover or an infinite regress to ground that universe.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            I'm just going to make this extremely fricking simple for you. You're the first person who just intuitively does NOT understand why an infinite regression just cannot obtain. Your moronation makes any advanced communication with you an actual, tangible challenge.

            Say we have a purple square. In a causal chain, this square can either be purple IN AND OF ITSELF, (necessary) or find its purple-ness in another, such as purple paint (contingent). Same thing applies for the purple paint: either it has purpleness in itself, or it finds its purpleness from the purple paint molecules, and so on, ad infinitum. This is the infinite contingent chain we are discussing.

            But here's the thing you're not fricking getting: if nothing in this chain has purpleness per se, then NO member in this contingent chain can actually impart or communicate purpleness to the other, because WHERE WOULD EACH MEMBER BE GETTING THE PURPLE FROM? Your solution to this is basically:
            >the purple is there because... IT JUST IS, OKAY?!!!

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >WHERE WOULD EACH MEMBER BE GETTING THE PURPLE FROM?
            The previous link in the causal chain that gives that member the property of purple. That's what an infinite regress is.
            In any infinite regress of causes one can point to any cause (including the colour purple) and have an explanation of what causes that cause: the previous cause in the chain.
            The prime mover argument just assumes that the property of purple is from a cause without a cause, which is simply special pleading.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >The previous link in the causal chain that gives that member the property of purple. That's what an infinite regress is.
            YES, BUT THAT MEMBER ISN'T PURPLE PER SE, IT GOT THE PURPLE FROM THE PREVIOUS LINK. WHICH MEANS NONE OF THE MEMBERS ACTUALLY POSSESS PURPLE, SO WHERE DID THE PURPLE COME FROM IN THE FIRST PLACE?

            Listen more than you speak.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >WHICH MEANS NONE OF THE MEMBERS ACTUALLY POSSESS PURPLE
            Why does it mean they don't possess the property of purple? What do you think "possessing purple" means?
            If a cause has the properties of purple why do you think it needs to be grounded in some other way?
            A certain amount of photons hit one's eye which produces the sensation of the colour purple in the brain. You can go back from that cause and every event in the causal chain will explain how one percieves the colour purple.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Why does it mean they don't possess the property of purple? What do you think "possessing purple" means?
            BECAUSE NONE OF THE MEMBERS ARE ESSENTIALLY PURPLE PER SE, THEY GET THEIR PURPLENESS FROM THE LAST MEMBER, UNTO INFINITY. SO WHERE DID THE PURPLE COME FROM IN THE FIRST PLACE? THEY ARE ALL CONDITIONALLY PURPLE, NOT ESSENTIALLY PURPLE, AFTER ALL. WHICH MEANS THERE IS NO PURPLE, EVER.

            moron.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >SO WHERE DID THE PURPLE COME FROM IN THE FIRST PLACE
            The question doesn't make sense, since there is no "first place". We don't need to know that to account for all of the causes in the universe.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >The question doesn't make sense, since there is no "first place". We don't need to know that to account for all of the causes in the universe.
            The purple paint still needs to have a causal origin, idiot, even if it doesn't have a temporal one. The purple paint does not find its causal origin in any of the members, because none of the members possess the property of purple per se, but get it from each other, which logically follows that none of the members should have purple at all, because, again, no causal origin. Like I said, you're essentially saying:
            >THE PURPLE IS THERE, BECAUSE... IT JUST IS, OKAY?!
            Special pleading.

            How many times do I have to reiterate this? Address the argument, Black person. What is the reason for the existence of the purple, here?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >The purple paint still needs to have a causal origin
            Which it does: the previous causal link in the chain. In this case, the arrangement of particles in the purple paint that reflects the wavelengths of light that our brain perceives as purple.
            >THE PURPLE IS THERE, BECAUSE... IT JUST IS, OKAY?!
            No, I'm saying the above. We can casually explain why purple paint is purple. I have no idea what else you want or think is necessary to explain about the purple.

            >So you can't explain why a series of integers from 1 to infinity is a contradiction without resorting to false analogies. OK.
            The issue is that the contradictory properties exist as part of the thing, our math just more clearly brought them out for someone who doesn't see them right away. Like if you had a triangle with four sides but someone had covered the edges with leaves so only the middle was visible. Even if someone bolted down every leaf so you could never see the sides, the object is still contradictory by it's definition, even if you make a rule that a person who doesn't immediately pick up on that can't more clearly be shown it.

            No matter what, "four-sided triangle" is contradictory because it means "three-sided four sides object". And no matter what, "actual infinite" is contradictory, since it means "completed uncompletable process". Like if you had a number line that had ALL of the numbers: the very idea is contradictory since listing numbers is an uncompletable process; there will always be more.

            You said "A series of integers from 1 to infinity, with no integers removed". But integers being removed isn't something we physically did; it's not like we had a backhoe and scooped 3, 4, and 5 out and put them somewhere. It's a purely abstract mathematical operation. We can always do it because it's simply math, not a physical action. And the possibility for a logical contradiction is, itself, a contradiction.

            >And no matter what, "actual infinite" is contradictory, since it means "completed uncompletable process"
            An infinity isn't completed in any sense, so no. That's not the definition.
            >the very idea is contradictory since listing numbers is an uncompletable process
            Why is an "uncompleteable process" contradictory? Many processes could be uncompletable. You need to demonstrate a contradiction, not assert one.
            >But integers being removed isn't something we physically did
            What? You just said "imagine an infinite series that is contradictory. Look, this series is contradictory! Therefore all infinite series are contradictory." You need to demonstrate every possible infinite series is contradictory, not just point to one you made up that is.

            I gave you an infinite series (of integers, 1 to infinity) that is not contradictory. Show why it is contradictory or don't bother arguing.
            >And the possibility for a logical contradiction is, itself, a contradiction.
            Uh, what? This is like saying it's possible to add up numbers in a way that produces a contradiction, therefore all addition is contradictory.

          • 6 months ago
            OP

            >An infinity isn't completed in any sense
            Say you had the complete list of all multiples of 7. What would that be?

            >Why is an "uncompleteable process" contradictory?
            It's not. It's contradictory if an uncompletable process is completed.

            >What? You just said "imagine an infinite series that is contradictory. Look, this series is contradictory! Therefore all infinite series are contradictory."
            You don't seem to be grasping this. Let's go back and look at it in very basic terms.
            What I described: what specifically was done with it, and does that result in a contradiction?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            I asked you to demonstrate why an infinite series from 1 to infinity is contradictory. Apparently you can't. If you want to refuse to demonstrate that and concede my point, OK.

            >This is like saying it's possible to add up numbers in a way that produces a contradiction, therefore all addition is contradictory.
            Yes! If such a thing were possible that would ABSOLUTELY be true! In logic something that results in a contradiction is called an inconsistent system, and with any inconsistent system you can prove anything and everything true or false.

            1+1+1=1
            Wow, this particular operation of addition is contradictory, therefore all addition is contradictory.

          • 6 months ago
            OP

            >This is like saying it's possible to add up numbers in a way that produces a contradiction, therefore all addition is contradictory.
            Yes! If such a thing were possible that would ABSOLUTELY be true! In logic something that results in a contradiction is called an inconsistent system, and with any inconsistent system you can prove anything and everything true or false.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Which it does: the previous causal link in the chain.
            The previous "causal link" does not possess purpleness in and of itself, so no, it is not the causal origin of the purple paint. The purple square is contingent on the previous link for it being coloured purple, sure, but that in and of itself does not explain the origin of the purple itself. You would need to explain that, or concede.

            Absolute midwit.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >but that in and of itself does not explain the origin of the purple itself
            Yes it does. The explanation that purple is an effect of an arrangement of particles that absorbs and reflects certain wavelengths of light in such a manner that our brain perceives as purple, explains every fact in the universe that involves the colour purple. I still have no idea what else you want explained more than every fact in the universe.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            1 Peter 3:15 contradicts your post

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >So you can't explain why a series of integers from 1 to infinity is a contradiction without resorting to false analogies. OK.
            The issue is that the contradictory properties exist as part of the thing, our math just more clearly brought them out for someone who doesn't see them right away. Like if you had a triangle with four sides but someone had covered the edges with leaves so only the middle was visible. Even if someone bolted down every leaf so you could never see the sides, the object is still contradictory by it's definition, even if you make a rule that a person who doesn't immediately pick up on that can't more clearly be shown it.

            No matter what, "four-sided triangle" is contradictory because it means "three-sided four sides object". And no matter what, "actual infinite" is contradictory, since it means "completed uncompletable process". Like if you had a number line that had ALL of the numbers: the very idea is contradictory since listing numbers is an uncompletable process; there will always be more.

            You said "A series of integers from 1 to infinity, with no integers removed". But integers being removed isn't something we physically did; it's not like we had a backhoe and scooped 3, 4, and 5 out and put them somewhere. It's a purely abstract mathematical operation. We can always do it because it's simply math, not a physical action. And the possibility for a logical contradiction is, itself, a contradiction.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >refute me
            With utmost pleasure. Does the statement "The Prime Mover of a nontrivial zero of the Riemann zeta function outside the critical line has not been proven" make sense? No. Because the Prime Mover is not existence.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Not the Prime Mover, though, which is the point.
            Which is begging the question. I can define anything as having any property. The question is whether a being with such a property (causeless existence) is likely to exist. It seems very implausible and a violation of logic that anything that is a causeless cause could exist, whether you posit one or not.

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          >All you've shown is that there is *a* infinite series that is contradictory. Ok?
          This contradiction arises with anything at all that involves an actual infinite because it is coming from a contradiction inherent to very definition of infinites. All we did was abstractly designate or undesignate things; this could be done with any infinite at all.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >this could be done with any infinite at all
            "Could be done" isn't good enough, it must *necessarily* be done to every single possible infinite series for it to rule out the possibility of an infinite regress.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            There is no infinite you couldn't do it with since the only property that matters for doing it is the thing being infinite.

            The presence of any infinite will make that contradiction possible, and what makes a contradiction possible is necessarily impossible.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            holy shit

            As I said, it's not that you COULDN'T alter any infinite series to make a contradiction, that's a completely banal point everyone would agree with. It's that one infinite series containing a contradiction doesn't mean EVERY possible infinite regress contains the same contradiction.

            For example to make this clear, in your original argument

            There can't be infinite past sources since actual infinites aren’t possible. They’re self-contradictions, and so can’t exist anymore than a colorless yellow fruit could.

            To illustrate the contradiction, let’s define an algorithm. At each iteration, we are going to place ten numbers in sequence in a group, and then remove the lowest number.

            So in the first iteration, we add the first ten numbers:
            [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10]

            And then remove the lowest number in the group. So the end result of the first iteration is:
            [2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10]

            We will repeat this process in the next iteration. So the end result of the second iteration is:
            [3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20]

            Now, if we were to repeat this algorithm an infinite number of times, how many numbers would be in our group?

            There would simultaneously be infinite numbers, and no numbers.

            Every specific number would be removed, yet at each iteration there would always be more numbers that had not been removed.
            There would be no number about which we could say “this one was not removed”. 1 was removed from the group in the first iteration, 2 was removed in the second iteration, 10 and 15 would have been removed in the tenth and fifteenth iterations, and so on. You could always say “this number was removed in that iteration”.
            Yet, not all the numbers can have been removed from the group. At each iteration, the amount of numbers in the group grows. It increases by ten, yet only one is removed, so at each iteration the amount of numbers that have been added is greater than the number destroyed - even more so than at the previous iterations. So after that is repeated infinitely, there would have to be an infinite amount of numbers in the group.

            So, simultaneously, every number has been removed, and yet there must be an infinite amount of numbers in the group.

            >To illustrate the contradiction, let’s define an algorithm. At each iteration, we are going to place ten numbers in sequence in a group, and then remove the lowest number.
            What if we have an infinite regress that doesn't remove any numbers? Then there is no contradiction.

            You need to explain how there is a contradiction for every single imagined infinite regress for your line of argument to hold.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >What if we have an infinite regress that doesn't remove any numbers? Then there is no contradiction.
            You're essentially saying something along the lines of "a four-sided triangle wouldn't be a contradiction as long as you didn't do anything with its sides. What if I just poke a hole through the middle of it?". The contradictory property is already present, we just showed it more clearly for someone who doesn't see it right away.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            A series of integers from 1 to infinity, with no integers removed. Why is this a contradiction?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            A four-sided triangle but you JUST poke the middle. Why is this a contradiction?

  8. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Since things can't be uncaused
    Why not?
    >and there can't be an infinite regression of past sources
    Why not?
    >there must be a definite, single source which is itself not uncaused
    And this cause ... is a talking bush, for some reason.
    >nothing needed to cause 1+1 to =2
    Actually the axioms of set theory are required to prove 1 + 1 = 2.

    Not going to read the rest of your drivel. Give me the argument in a more concise way.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Why not?
      Have we ever observed anything infinite or uncaused, or have all of our observations always been of things caused and finite?

      >is a talking bush
      You think someone that could make an entire universe couldn't make a bush that doesn't burn?

      >Actually the axioms of set theory are required to prove 1 + 1 = 2.
      Let me prove to you 1+1=2 more easily than that:
      | + | = ||

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        How do you know, if something has a cause that you don't know or if it has no cause? Very interesting question. I conjecture that things without causes do exists. But in a realms that are inaccessible to our instincts and intuitions. For example, if these things are either very small or very big. I think that there are processes that do not have causes.
        Howsoever it may be, it doesn't matter, whether or not we have observations of things that do not have causes. If you want to have your premise, you have to show it. Which you didn't.

        >You think someone that could make an entire universe couldn't make a bush that doesn't burn?
        I think it's absurd that he would do that, yeah. Among a plethora of other absurd things that God is said to have done.

        >proof
        What is "|" supposed to mean? What do you mean by "+" and "=" exactly? How does it carry over to concept of numbers? You would have to specify all of these things, in order to construct a theory, in which you can have proofs. Luckily for you, mathematicians have done that and introduced a set of axioms - both, as far as we know, free of contradictions and redundancies and as holistic as possible. Despite it, it relies axioms that you do in fact need.

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          >I conjecture that things without causes do exists. But in a realms that are inaccessible to our instincts and intuitions
          And I thought it was atheists always accusing Christians of having blind faith! If you're willing to believe in this undetectable realm of causelessness, use that for God too and become a Christian, at least that belief might gain you something.

          >it doesn't matter, whether or not we have observations of things that do not have causes
          How do you think we should figure out what the laws of reality are, then, if observation apparently doesn't do it?

          >I think it's absurd that he would do that, yeah
          What would you have done instead?

          >What is "|" supposed to mean?
          nothing, it's just a line bro

          >What do you mean by "+" and "=" exactly?
          a line and a line get ya two lines

          >How does it carry over to concept of numbers?
          numbers are just amounts my man

          >You would have to specify all of these things, in order to construct a theory, in which you can have proofs
          not really
          even the most basic primitive culture has a concept of "two" and the fact that one thing and another thing get you a pair of things

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >And I thought it was atheists always accusing Christians of having blind faith!
            Most atheists have blind faith in evolutionism and abiogenesis too.

            Man coming from apes or fish and life coming from nonlife contradicts all observational science and all of known history, but they go on believing on blind faith in spite of that because it gives them an answer to some of the big questions of life without God who gave a moral law (or even any false god who would still ask something of them). This is also why they need deep time, like saying the universe is gorillions of years old, again in spite of all the evidence that proves we're living in a young universe. They just disregard or explain away all of the evidence that proves a young universe. They need an old universe because they assert time is a miracle maker and can make that which is scientifically impossible happen.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Miller-Urey-experiment.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            I don't believe it exists and I don't urge or try to convince you it does. It's my own conjecture and a tangent to what I said. Interesting question, nevertheless. As a matter of fact, I do believe you could "prove" it using experiments. But I'm not sure.

            >How do you think we should figure out what the laws of reality are, then, if observation apparently doesn't do it?
            We can't know them, if they even exist, which we sadly can't know, either. Best we can do, is theories that describe and predict the world in a reasonable margin of error.

            >What would you have done instead?
            The whole concept of a God is absurd and a contradiction to me. Your question is on par with asking: What would you have done with a rectangular triangle in which the Pythagorean theorem doesn't hold?

            >a line and a line get ya two lines
            Yeah that's a statement not a proof of a statement, like e.g. for your statement "2 + 2 = 1". You need definitions in order to deduct a statement from them and formulate a proof. If I say "2 + 2 = 1" without context, it's as saying "Tomorrow the sun will shine" without context. It's an assertion, okay. But, no new knowledge is produced here. It's boring.

            >even the most basic primitive culture has a concept of "two" and the fact that one thing and another thing get you a pair of things
            Just because Tom and Bob both agree that 1 and 1 makes 2 doesn't mean it's proven to be true. As I said, you need to define rigorously what you mean by 1 and by 2 and what you mean by addition. In fact, you would also need to define the logic that you are going to use. In the context of these definitions only, can you then prove - i.e. use the logic you declared - to infer the statement from the definitions of addition and the numbers 1 and 2. It's not a trivial thing, at all.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >I don't believe it exists
            Then what's it have to do with whether things can be uncaused?

            >Best we can do, is theories that describe and predict the world in a reasonable margin of error.
            How do you propose we come up with these theories?

            >The whole concept of a God is absurd and a contradiction to me. Your question is on par with asking: What would you have done with a rectangular triangle in which the Pythagorean theorem doesn't hold?
            Well what's the contradiction?

            >Yeah that's a statement not a proof of a statement
            I can prove it by taking | and another | putting them together and we have ||
            You can prove it to yourself: make | and | and ask how many lines you've got.

            >Yeah that's a statement not a proof of a statement
            | and | together being || proves my statement

            >it's as saying "Tomorrow the sun will shine" without context
            I mean...yeah? This is correct so I don't see what you're on about.

            >As I said, you need to define rigorously what you mean by 1 and by 2 and what you mean by addition.
            That process never ends. Definitions can get more and more and more rigorous without limit. Gödel's incompleteness theorems prove this. Your system will _NEVER_ be fully rigorous.

  9. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    So my dog took just a shit in the forest and its supposed to be evidence that these magical creatures called gods exist? I could claim that pink transsexual elephants created the world with this logic.

  10. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Since things can't be uncaused
    What caused the israelite in the sky?

  11. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    >nothing can be uncaused!
    proof?
    >makes up a convoluted way to explain God supposedly being uncaused

  12. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Since things can't be uncaused, and there can't be an infinite regression of past sources, there must be a definite, single source which is itself not uncaused.
    That doesn't follow at all Christ-tard op.
    That also doesn't at all explain what created god.
    You haven't answered anything.
    You're just exceedingly stupid.

  13. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    It warms my heart hitting the "hide thread" button on a thread like this, without reading a single reply

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      I like to come in, leave my demoralizing and completely correct argument, and then leave never to elaborate or respond to the people it makes mad.

  14. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    > there can't be an infinite regression of past sources
    Infinite regress make more sense than claiming that there can't be anything causeless, and then making a special schizo pleading that some things must be causeless.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      Where does the post say anything is causeless?

  15. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Since things can't be uncaused, and there can't be an infinite regression of past sources,
    Prove any of these two statements; I know you won't

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      Have we ever observed something uncaused?

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        Does lack of observation of a phenomenon mean it can't happen?

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          When every single thing everyone has ever experienced goes against it, then yes.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Why?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Why?
            If that doesn't suffice you then nothing will. You can just keep endlessly asking why to everything.

    • 6 months ago
      OP

      For causelessness, Without causality, a thing needs nothing before it can happen. So the criteria for a thing happening would be met for all things, and so you would have all possible objects and all possible events in all possible combinations at all possible points of space in all possible points of time. Always.

      For actual infinites aren’t possible. They’re self-contradictions, and so can’t exist anymore than a colorless yellow fruit could.

      To illustrate the contradiction, let’s define an algorithm. At each iteration, we are going to place ten numbers in sequence in a group, and then remove the lowest number.

      So in the first iteration, we add the first ten numbers:
      [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10]

      And then remove the lowest number in the group. So the end result of the first iteration is:
      [2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10]

      We will repeat this process in the next iteration. So the end result of the second iteration is:
      [3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20]

      Now, if we were to repeat this algorithm an infinite number of times, how many numbers would be in our group?

      There would simultaneously be infinite numbers, and no numbers.

      Every specific number would be removed, yet at each iteration there would always be more numbers that had not been removed.
      There would be no number about which we could say “this one was not removed”. You could always say “this number was removed in that iteration”.
      Yet, not all the numbers can have been removed from the group. At each iteration, the amount of numbers in the group grows. It increases by ten, yet only one is removed, so at each iteration the amount of numbers that have been added is greater than the number destroyed. So after that is repeated infinitely, there would have to be an infinite amount of numbers in the group.

      So, simultaneously, every number has been removed, and yet there must be an infinite amount of numbers in the group.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        >if we were to repeat this algorithm an infinite number of times
        is this from the same source as the 'last digit of 0.9999...'? you haven't defined what it means to 'repeat something an infinite number of times'.
        all you can do is endow the set of subsets of nonzero naturals with a proper metric and then talk about the limit of your sequence. consider for instance the following distance: if the two sets are identical, the distance is zero, else it is the inverse of the smallest number in which the two sets differ. in this, or pretty much any other metric the limit is the empty set.
        this has frick-all to do with causality. an actually infinite chain of causal links extending to the past is not an absurdity, you just wish it to be so.

        • 6 months ago
          OP

          >you haven't defined what it means to 'repeat something an infinite number of times'.
          Ah, my apologies, I didn't realize you wanted to argue for the existence of something you don't even know the meaning of.

          Ultimately you actually can't give it a coherent definition, because it's contradictory. It's like giving a coherent definition to "four-sided triangle".

          But here, let me put it in concrete terms. Say we had a contest between two people. One of them wants to make an infinite number of objects in the space of a minute. So after half a minute passes, he creates ten objects, each labeled with the numbers 1 through 10. Once it reaches half of the remaining time, he creates ten more, labels them 11 through 20, and continues this process every time it reaches half the remaining time.

          The second person wins the contest if he stops the first person and destroys all of his objects, so each time the first person makes ten objects, this second person destroys the lowest-labeled one. So from the first group, he destroys the object labeled 1. From the second, he destroys the object labeled 2, and continues this each time the first person makes the objects.

          Once the minute has passed, which person would have won? Would the first person have won and there would be infinite objects, or would the second person have won and there would be none?

          There would simultaneously be no objects and an infinite number of objects, for the same reason as we saw with our group of numbers earlier. We have the same contradiction on our hands.

          >an actually infinite chain of causal links extending to the past is not an absurdity

          It is, because if we were to designate and undesignate links in that chain in the manner I described, we would get the contradiction I described.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            negative integers exist. you teach the next one by adding 1 to it. we are now at 0. the chain extends to an infinte past.
            or you could remove the top ten numbers from a set and add the one before the smallest. we are now at the empty set. I have just relabeled the relation between consecutive stages of your process in the opposite direction. what now?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            *reach the next one
            ffs.

          • 6 months ago
            OP

            I don't see how this post relates to anything I said, to the point that I wonder if you're replying to the right person. Are you going to answer any of the questions I asked?

  16. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    I hear you. But how do you make the jump from this to the bible being an accurate account of events.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      >bible
      he didn't even mention the bible you obssessed moron you web stuff like woke people out of confirmation bias so you can keep lieing and stealing shit lmao

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        His point is that Christians arguing for their god from the Prime Mover is stupid because even if it's correct it only gets one as far as deism.

        As an atheist I find deism infinitely more plausible than providential theism, let alone all of Christianity's particular theological and historical claims.

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          >His point is that Christians
          op didnt mention christianity in any way. why are you so mentally ill about christianity and the idea of god?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            it would be nice if you stopped this shit. the 'argument' quacks like a christian one.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            1- not it doesnt, if for you arguing for gods existence or for stuff about virtue or good is only about christianity to you then i must inform you that you are appallingly ignorant

            2-there is nothing wrong about discussing the validity of arguments regardless of the religion of someone. either you can show their arguments are wrong or you can't. im' not christian and i defend arguments that go in the direction of christianity sometimes just for sport because im not a biased moron

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Vanishingly few people are emotionally invested in proving the existence of a deist God, so it's pretty safe to assume OP is a Christian or similar theist (the same point applies to other religions).

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Vanishingly few people are emotionally invested in proving the existence of a deist God
            but that's not really the case though, especially not when talking about philosophy. you re just moronic and obsessed

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >but that's not really the case though, especially not when talking about philosophy.
            It is the case that there are vastly more Christian or other theist philosophers than there are deists, yes. In fact I don't know any contemporary philosophers who are deist (I'm sure they exist but their number is vanishingly small).

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            but you re talking about books. we re not talking about books here, we re talking about discussing arguments with a person in real life. who cares about the percentages made up in your head, do you know all philosophical books? no you don't since you say i'm sure. considering how biased you are, you d probably avoid them like the plague anyway o you d just see what you want to see regardless

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *