Where did life begin? (Merged)

[Orange_Crush]

It's special pleading only if you do not understand the metaphysics behind the argument. Aquinas provided more than enough logical justification for his conception of god to abide by a different set of laws than what governs his creation.

I am convinced that they understand the underlying metaphysics, as they have taken issue with the use of metaphysics.

I am convinced neither of them understand the actual definition of "special pleading".

 

[Septic]

"All dogs have four legs."

"Humans don't"

That's not special pleading either.

Good night, sep.

We'll, on this we agree.

G'night.

 

[Orange_Crush]

We'll, on this we agree.

G'night.

Actually, you should have pressed me. I once had a three legged dog name Gimp.

 

[Orangeslice13]

Actually, you should have pressed me. I once had a three legged dog name Gimp.

Should have named him Tri-pod

 

[Wafflestomper]

The one outlined by Aquinas, which is the most notable and famous version of the first cause argument. Regardless, my prior comment was not meant to be taken as an insult. Asking that question in response to any version of the first cause argument is literally asking the same question that the argument provides the answer for.

Here is another popular version of the argument:

Whatever begins to exist has a cause;
The universe began to exist;
Therefore:
The universe has a cause.

Here is Aquinas' version:

There is an efficient cause for everything; nothing can be the efficient cause of itself.

It is not possible to regress to infinity in efficient causes.

To take away the cause is to take away the effect.

If there be no first cause then there will be no others.

Therefore, a First Cause exists (and this is God).

Where in either of these arguments premises is it shown that more than one "first cause" (or non-contingent being) can't exist?

 

[Orange_Crush]

Should have named him Tri-pod

In hindsight, I missed many opportunities.

 

[rjd970]

Aquinas also advocated the wholesale torture and execution of Jews and heretics. Not sure it’s relevant to the question at hand but it’s worth noting for posterity while we point to him as an intellectual giant.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Speaking of fallacious argumentation. Congratulations.

 

[rjd970]

Speaking of fallacious argumentation. Congratulations.

I guess you missed the second sentence where I said it wasn’t relevant to the question at hand?

 

[Orange_Crush]

I guess you missed the second sentence where I said it wasn’t relevant to the question at hand?

No. But I also didn't miss the part:

...while we point to him as an intellectual giant

Seems to me you were trying to have your cake and eat it too. Claim you're not trying to affect the argument while trying to affect the argument.

You sly devil, you. Far too sly for the likes if us, eh?

 

[rjd970]

No. But I also didn't miss the part:



Seems to me you were trying to have your cake and eat it too. Claim you're not trying to affect the argument while trying to affect the argument.

You sly devil, you. Far too sly for the likes if us, eh?

Lol...smh. Ok, sure.

 

[Remy]

A Supreme Being aka Creator aka God? Yes, I firmly believe. Atheism is just another form of belief as they can no ore prove theirs than any theist can prove theirs. I find intellect behind that along with the power to enforce those types of rules (speed of light, faith is belief without proof, for every action an equal and opposite reaction, etc etc etc) in this universe.

 

[Septic]

A Supreme Being aka Creator aka God? Yes, I firmly believe. Atheism is just another form of belief as they can no ore prove theirs than any theist can prove theirs. I find intellect behind that along with the power to enforce those types of rules (speed of light, faith is belief without proof, for every action an equal and opposite reaction, etc etc etc) in this universe.

I always chuckle at this as it reminds me of the someone telling me that atheism is a belief like bald is a hairstyle or not collecting baseball cards is a hobby.

 

[PKT_VOL]

An infinite regression of moments is a logical impossibility. It isn't about whether one can explain it or not. It's about the fact that if there was an infinite number of moments stretching out into eternity past, we would never make it to this moment.

My point is that aseity isn't merely an attempt to quell questions.

A prime mover is not illogical.

Both are equally absurd concepts based on our current understandings.

 

[Remy]

I always chuckle at this as it reminds me of the someone telling me that atheism is a belief like bald is a hairstyle or not collecting baseball cards is a hobby.

Most atheists I've met are self declared intellectuals. Their BEST and most often laziest argument is the now well worn cliche, "you cannot prove a negative." To which I regretfully have to inform them they must have missed 4th grade math class where negative numbers were discussed.

-1 + -1 = -2

Negative proven. Atheists are practicing a faith until they can prove it just like theists. Their next best argument for practicing the faith of atheism after missing 4th grade math class is usually with a gulp and disappear until they contact someone within their faith based organization how to respond, you know like Catholics or Buddhists do who appeal to their faith's hierarchy for questions about their religion.

 

[Darth_Shiveman]

If there are no Gods, then how can -1 + -1 = -2?


Checkmate, atheists.

 

[Septic]

Most atheists I've met are self declared intellectuals. Their BEST and most often laziest argument is the now well worn cliche, "you cannot prove a negative." To which I regretfully have to inform them they must have missed 4th grade math class where negative numbers were discussed.

-1 + -1 = -2

Negative proven. Atheists are practicing a faith until they can prove it just like theists. Their next best argument for practicing the faith of atheism after missing 4th grade math class is usually with a gulp and disappear until they contact someone within their faith based organization how to respond, you know like Catholics or Buddhists do who appeal to their faith's hierarchy for questions about their religion.

If you say so.

Do you believe in pixies and garden gnomes?

 

[The Ron Mexico]

Most atheists I've met are self declared intellectuals. Their BEST and most often laziest argument is the now well worn cliche, "you cannot prove a negative." To which I regretfully have to inform them they must have missed 4th grade math class where negative numbers were discussed.

-1 + -1 = -2

Negative proven. Atheists are practicing a faith until they can prove it just like theists. Their next best argument for practicing the faith of atheism after missing 4th grade math class is usually with a gulp and disappear until they contact someone within their faith based organization how to respond, you know like Catholics or Buddhists do who appeal to their faith's hierarchy for questions about their religion.

I’m not an atheist, but did this really just happen?

 

[PKT_VOL]

I'm not sure about the extent (e.g., 30% adhere to some form of theistic personalism, 25% adhere to classical theism, etc.) to which theologians disagree over the nature of god, however their agreement is ultimately irrelevant. Truth is not a game of credibility, although that sure helps in the art of convincing another person. I do know that this move was heavily influenced by the practical success of the natural sciences and inevitably resulted in scientism conquering every branch of knowledge, which includes philosophy. But I digress...

You may want to reread the sentence right before that excerpt.



Those distinctions are merely to help people understand the nature of God. In the Scholastics (read: St. Aquinas and co.) metaphysics that provides the foundation of divine simplicity, there is no distinction in his attributes as he does not have attributes but is actually that attribute. He is goodness, he is power, he is existence. That is merely a tool to help us understand that vastness of what God is. Also, God has no "person" per se, however he is the attributes (e.g., intellect, will) that exemplifies what we would call a person.

...and I thought Roustabout was the only one that still adhered to DS.

 

[PKT_VOL]

Asking such questions must mean you did not understand the argument at all.



That depends on what you mean by God. There are certainly more powerful creatures than humans, such as angels, that would appear godlike but are certainly not God properly defined. If we only use the proper definition, then certainly some degree of revelation is required to nail down the specifics of salvation, etc. However, classical theism implies a god that intervenes in the universe and thus its creatures in a very intimate way even outside divine conservation. In fact, you can reason all the way down to resurrection of the body.

I would like to hear this.

 

[JHuntVols]

Here is another popular version of the argument:


Here is Aquinas' version:



Where in either of these arguments premises is it shown that more than one "first cause" (or non-contingent being) can't exist?

Again, you cannot separate his argument from his metaphysics. It's his metaphysics that give precise meaning to his argument. Also, the website you pulled the formulation of the first cause from isn't trustworthy as it is simply not how Aquinas would formulate such an argument. This is probably because the writer is exposed to the many straw man versions of the argument and immediately attributes the argument to Aquinas, which is to be expected as his thought is very much different than what we could call the founding fathers (e.g., Descartes, Kant, etc.) of modern philosophy.

Aquinas would never say "everything" would have an efficient cause. In fact, the things that would have an efficient cause according to Aquinas is "“everything whose act of existing is other than its nature [must] have its act of existing from another” (On Being and Essence, Goodwin*). As I've already pointed out earlier in this thread on multiple occasions, God is his attributes; God is existence. That simple explanation of the fundamentals of his metaphysics immediately disproves the entire formulation of the argument as it would apply to Aquinas.

His argument properly formulated must also result in only one God (read: pure actuality) as to have more than one god would mean that there would be something that must distinguish them. This is impossible as it would mean that one god had an unrealized potential (the "feature" that distinguishes between the two beings), and that is self-contradictory to what a Thomist would term God.

 

[Orangeslice13]

If a tree fell in a forest and there were no chickens to hear it., could G-d make an egg so big the chicken couldn’t tell which happened first?

 

[Orangeslice13]

And if we scrambled that big ass egg would it be any less delicious? And how many people would it take to eat the unbearable big ass egg?

 

[The Ron Mexico]

If a tree fell in a forest and there were no chickens to hear it., could G-d make an egg so big the chicken couldn’t tell which happened first?

-1 + -1 = -2

I think remy has your answer. Checkmate, slice.

 

[OuterBanksVol]

if there are no gods, then how can -1 + -1 = -2?


Checkmate, atheists.