Where did life begin? (Merged)

Do you believe we have a creator, aka "God"?

  • Total voters
    0
  • Poll closed .
#2,251
#2,251
You’re memes are weak.
If you want to aggravate Christians you need to step it up big time. Right now all you’re doing is having people look down on you with pitty.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#2,253
#2,253
Aquinas proof:

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).





Aquinas takes little steps along the way to build up to the conclusion he wants, but it still contradicts itself in the end.

Read the first and last premise without the middle parts. It’s telling.

Also, I don’t think the second premise has to be true. And the last premise clarifier (this is God) is without any foundation whatsoever.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#2,259
#2,259
K9Buck said:
Do you believe we have a creator, aka "God"?
Click to expand...

Yes I believe, but I get ‘why’ some don’t or doubt.

It’s a tough walk though, I get it, there’s ‘so much’ thought and analytical perspective. Life’s tough, and there’s so many outside influences, so doubt is pretty normal ‘on the surface’

Straight up...

I’ve never know anyone who has God in their life and who’s accepted Jesus into their life, who’ve regretted it.

However, I’ve personally experienced this and know many people that have gotten away from these relationships
and regret it in many facets, which is a long winded story.

Here’s a cool read:

Does God Exist - Six Reasons to Believe that God is Really There - Is There a God
 
Last edited:
#2,261
#2,261
JHuntVols said:
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.
Click to expand...

You originally said that I didn't understand the argument if I questioned whether there could be more than one non-contingent being. I've seen nothing yet, other than assertions vis-a-vis the nature of this being, that shows this to be true. The part in bold could easily apply to an infinite number of non-contingent beings if I decided to claim that it was in their nature to exist.

Is the claim that there can't be multiple non-contingent beings dependent upon Aquinas's derivation of this being's nature/properties? I think you probably know that I don't find those arguments compelling.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#2,262
#2,262
rjd970 said:
Aquinas proof:

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).





Aquinas takes little steps along the way to build up to the conclusion he wants, but it still contradicts itself in the end.

Read the first and last premise without the middle parts. It’s telling.

Also, I don’t think the second premise has to be true. And the last premise clarifier (this is God) is without any foundation whatsoever.
Click to expand...

One, Are you quoting Aquinas or a summary?
Two, if you say there's a contradiction then you are obligated to point it out.
 
Last edited:
#2,269
#2,269
Roustabout said:
First point not answered, and no he didn't.

Pointimg out a contradiction is not making a bald assertion.
Click to expand...

The first and last points contradict each other;

There is a cause for everything
.
.
.
There is a first cause

If there is a first cause, then In fact there isn’t a cause for everything. The conclusion contradicts the premise on which it started. It’s an absurd circular argument.

But that really doesn’t matter because it breaks down at his second point of infinite regress. It isn’t possible? Oh really? Why? Because one can’t fathom infinite regress, doesn’t mean it isn’t possible.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#2,270
#2,270
apevol said:
merry christmas
Click to expand...

also happy hanukkah, festivus and kwanza to everyone.

My kids best friend had a heart attack (vfib arrest) yesterday during their cross country running practice. He's fine due to his coaches knowledge of CPR and a quick response by EMS (and their defibrillator).

Three take away from this, hug your kids tighter they're what's most important. Learn CPR f you don't know it and have your athletic kids get an ekg at their next pediatric visit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#2,271
#2,271
rjd970 said:
The first and last points contradict each other;

There is a cause for everything
.
.
.
There is a first cause

If there is a first cause, then In fact there isn’t a cause for everything. The conclusion contradicts the premise on which it started. It’s an absurd circular argument.

But that really doesn’t matter because it breaks down at his second point of infinite regress. It isn’t possible? Oh really? Why? Because one can’t fathom infinite regress, doesn’t mean it isn’t possible.
Click to expand...

I will let Roust answer, but per the infinite regression, you are incorrect. If there were an infinite number of moments leading to this moment, it's logically impossible to have reached this moment. Trade out "causes" for moments and the argument is the same.
 
#2,272
#2,272
#2,273
#2,273
apevol said:
merry christmas
Click to expand...

Merry Christmas brothers, And a safe and happy New Year. Brady just threw a pick six, and my Panthers are 10 and 4, and winning today. Cant win the division without the saints dropping a game...we can actually win next week against ATL, finish 12 n 4, and not win our division. Crazy... the NFC south is the strongest div. In football this year.
 
#2,274
#2,274
Orange_Crush said:
I will let Roust answer, but per the infinite regression, you are incorrect. If there were an infinite number of moments leading to this moment, it's logically impossible to have reached this moment. Trade out "causes" for moments and the argument is the same.
Click to expand...

Not if the moments are a closed loop. By definition there is no beginning or end to a circle. I’ve said this before until I’m blue in the face. Time is not a series of moments passing from the past to the present to the future. Time is like space, it just is. Space and time are the same thing. It could mean that time simply folds in on itself. That is perfectly reasonable and within the confines of accepted physics.

Think about it like going to Detroit. While Detroit will always be in the same geographic point, Detroit today doesn’t look anything like Detroit 500 years ago. The space changes, but the location never does. We could in a sense be “revisiting Detroit” over and over again.

Of course, that could be wrong. I fully admit that. But that is basic Einstein. Change is an illusion, everything just “is”. And to discount that as impossible is willful ignorance at best, and flat wrong at worst.

So no, Aquinas and all his infinite knowledge from the 1200’s can’t say that infinite regression is an impossibility. We continue to project conclusions based on our reality, when, in fact, our reality is a special case.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#2,275
#2,275
Wafflestomper said:
You originally said that I didn't understand the argument if I questioned whether there could be more than one non-contingent being. I've seen nothing yet, other than assertions vis-a-vis the nature of this being, that shows this to be true. The part in bold could easily apply to an infinite number of non-contingent beings if I decided to claim that it was in their nature to exist.

Is the claim that there can't be multiple non-contingent beings dependent upon Aquinas's derivation of this being's nature/properties? I think you probably know that I don't find those arguments compelling.
Click to expand...

I did say that, and I stand by that statement. That's why I pointed out that you must understand his metaphysics to understand his arguments. No I provided an argument as to why it was only one God, which is again in quotes below, and you seemingly noted that argument as you then asked that if his nature is dependent on the properties that Aquinas assigned to God. That again tells me you do not understand his argument because you again fail to understand his metaphysics. God has no properties to Aquinas as that would mean he is not simple (see divine simplicity). To better understand his metaphysics and therefore his numerous arguments then I suggest picking up the kindle version of Aquinas for $6.

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.
Click to expand...
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top