Atheism is rampant in the west, and yet God's existence is literally undeniable. Let's start with 5 proofs. Here's the first one:
1. In the world, we can see that things are caused.
3. Every cause is the effect of some other cause.
4. But this cannot be an infinitely long chain of causes.
5. So, there must be a cause which is not itself caused by anything further. This everyone understands to be God.
QED heathens
Other urls found in this thread:
dhspriory.org
twitter.com
Second one:
1. In the world, we can see that at least some things are changing.
2. Whatever is changing is being changed by something else.
3. If that by which it is changing is itself changed, then it too is being changed by something else.
4. But this chain cannot be infinitely long.
5. So there must be something that causes change without itself changing. This everyone understands to be God.
1. In the world we see things that are possible to be and possible not to be. In other words, perishable things.
2. But if everything were contingent and thus capable of going out of existence, then, given infinite time, this possibility would be realized and nothing would exist now.
3. But things clearly do exist now.
4.Therefore, there must be something that is imperishable: a necessary being. This everyone understands to be God.
>brainlets can't even reply
Fourth way:
1. We see things in the world that vary in degrees of goodness, truth, nobility, etc. For example, sick animals and healthy animals, and well-drawn circles as well as poorly drawn ones.
2. But judging something as being "more" or "less" implies some standard against which it is being judged.
3. Therefore, there is something which is goodness itself, and this everyone understands to be God.
>literally undeniable
Doesn't exist.
Feeling passionately about something doesn't make you right.
The inability to explain something doesn't preclude reason.
>This everyone understands to be God
Fine, and I've decided that this god is THOR !
Change is not proof of god.
You just described physics. Just because a concept extends beyond your ability to comprehend it doesn't mean it's beyond comprehension. It means you don't possess the brain power.
Judgment is rooted solely in our ability to appreciate or use something. A standard is based upon experience. Most people don't even have a standard for most thing; they rely on the judgment of others.
If you're going to be religious, judgment at the human level comes from your buddy satan. Good thing he's imaginary, too.
that's okay
“A little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism; but depth in philosophy bringeth men’s minds about to religion,”
- Bacon
Oh really? Then why haven't I seen/heard "god" or "angels". Nice try muslim foot sucker.
I don't care how delicious fried pork belly is; you can't trick me into believing that religion is the ultimate conclusion.
-me
- because they don't exist, user. If they did, certainly god would've sent down something to set us straight by now.
no compelling reason to equate it to being god.
How do we prove premise 4? Why can't it be turtles all the way down forever and ever?
I have lost the ability to decipher the difference between a bait poster and the average American poster. Anyone else?
What denomination puts the most emphasis on study? I was interested in the Catholic church at one point because of their theological and scholarly resources. Are there any non fringe (Jehova's Witnesses) denomination that arent cucked and with a strong focus on biblical education in their churches?
A pretty important aspect is that their must be a SUPERNATURAL cause, without specifying people will assume God to be natural and therefore beholden to causality as well.
It's funny when the religious attempt to use reason. They just don't understand that the disconnect isn't just always obvious, but also can't be circumvented.
>But this cannot be an infinitely long chain of causes.
why not fgt
>Judgment is rooted solely in our ability to appreciate or use something.
No an actual circle is objectively better.
These are bad arguments, fix and stick with the OP.
Nice job not reading a word else. Typical atheist.
First, you posted four rather than five. Second, you missed 2. In the OP. Third, these proofs are all the same idea applied to different concepts, hardly 4 seperate proofs. In conclusion OP is a fag and everybody knows God hates fags.
>I say God is real
>therefore he is
Wow, what undeniable proof. You stating nonsense sure proves you're right.
WHERE IS MUH FIFTH PROOF?
There's no escaping the fact that there are many people on earth much, much more intelligent than you are. You can't pass them all off as shitposters or "average Americans". Everyone who believes that they've found the answers also believes everyone else is wrong. I don't have all the answers, but I can tell that you think you do. As you age, your opinions will change, user. You'll come to find that anyone who has all the answers doesn't have the right answers, just answers. People often confuse having answers for everything as being proof, but it isn't. Religion is a fascinating subject. Religion is humanity's most powerful creation. Religion is simply a philosophy, nothing more.
You think you've made an actual intelligent remark, but you haven't.
>atheists suffer from low reading comprehension and inhibited logical faculties
Imagine my shock.
I read everything. I comprehended everything.
>assumes that when thinking people don't arrive at the same conclusions, they're not smart because they don't factor in magic.
Typical religious cuck
>tries to prove Aquinas' first Way
>doesn't reference Aquinas' distinction between act and potency
>doesn't reference the difference between per accidens and per se causal series
OP is a fag
Explain it to us then, holy one.
You wrote exactly what this poster summed-up.
Not an argument unfortunately. Even if you're not there to appreciate it, good maths is better than bad maths. Praying for you
Aquinas’ arguments do little in the way of proving that God as a necessary being exists at least in the Judaic-Christian sense. As Hume notes, if we are basing it on our experience of cause and effect, then would it not be more logical to have the idea of male and female Gods who are mortal instead?
>Duh, i've never dun seen it, therefore it dudn't exist!
>"5 proofs"
all of you who think atheism is a religion are fucking retarded
What you just said made everyone here stupider.
The post you said wasn't an argument wasn't intended to be. It was pointing out that what you said was a) not an argument (though yours was supposed to be) and b) nonsensical. If you want to play word games, go ahead. Just don't expect any actual regard for what your saying.
We live in a causal natural universe; one in which everything that happens does so due to a cascade of conditions that preceded it. Should we rewind the clock long enough, we encounter an effect with no cause, the origin of time, space and matter.
This suggests that either causality is illusory (as effects can occur without causes) or that a supernatural primary cause initiated our causal natural universe.
Feel free to abandon causality in your efforts to hide from God, but the whole of the (incidentally, largely religious) scientific community will laugh at your ignorance the same as I.
and you arent wrong.
>Aquinas’ arguments do little in the way of proving that God as a necessary being
It's times like these I realize the caliber of people that traffic this site and what little it will ever achieve.
Mackie states that Aquinas’ argument from causation was like regarding the Universe as a series of hooks that hang below one another from a fixed point on a wall. If the wall were to be taken away, according to Aquinas’ logic, the chain would fall apart. Mackie, however, suggests that the chain of hooks may not collapse as it is possible, to him at least, that the chain could be infinite. This is infinite regress, but Mackie says that it is possible that an infinite regress could logically exist, eliminating the need for a first cause.
Or you could read the whole sentence.
lol nice one
If you can't understand the five ways you are literally a brainlet
>Accuses me of playing word games
>Has an autistic chimp out over logic
You're the one playing word games user, focus on the facts.
"I can't think of anything else so surely it all adds up to a magical man in the sky" - the thread.
Aquinas was right, I feel, in his ardent defense of the existence of God. Unfortunately, I believe that, like most Christcucks and theists in general, his predictions and arguments concerning the ultimate, inherent nature of God were gravely mistaken.
Line 5 contradicts line 3.
This is pushing the question further away with an unfounded, additional assumption. I believe atheists are fans of the often ill-used Occam’s razor? What Mackie is doing here is no more intellectual than tuning in halfway through a nascar race and assuming the cars have simply always been driving.
Besides that, scientific consensus is that the universe did indeed have a beginning something so natural and obvious that nigh every religion that ever existed recognized it.
I think the argument would've been better if he formulated it around the generation of the laws that govern (and quite literally are) the universe, and the necessity for them to be decided upon for the structure to work.
*tips fedora*
Aquinas' argument is axiomatic. It it true only if the assumed axioms are true. The same with every single ontological proof.
It's just one argument, this entire argument and its criticisms can be found with a quick Google search. Atheists will say it in no way proves God's exists while theists will say it does.
So what you're saying is that everything had to come from nothing, so god is the only answer that fits the bill? Oh yeah, you also said that the "largly religious" scientific community will laugh at me if I don't believe in god.
You cannot possibly define what causes existed before we arrived in the present time. No one can. Religion makes up stories to describe what we cannot explain, but science never clams to have all the answers; that realm belongs to religion alone. The Big Bang theory is just a theory, but so is religion. One is based upon reproducible research and one is based upon eons of storytelling and confusion derived from ancient languages and cultures, much of it probably coming as a result of allegory of even more ancient stories. Your inability to define a cause for (for example) the Big Bang doesn't mean it can't be defined, only that it hasn't been.
In the end, god is a possibility, but so are aliens and any other creation story ever devised anywhere. Is comparison, god is an extremely unlikely scenario as most ultra-fantastic stories are.
>everything has a cause, therefore god
so what caused god? You're just passing the buck.
Same thing as the first one, because "cause" and "change" mean the same thing in this context.
once again same thing, just replace "to be" with "caused"
I don't even know where to start with this one. It's simply a shit argument. There are idealized gestalts, therefore god?
I'm not even an atheist, but these are all terrible arguments. They're "hurr create a rock he cannot lift" tier
Which is the stronger argument?
Is there any atheist kek in this thread that denies a probability of primordial structure of matter to have become existing by act of God?
The big bang is not in conflict with God, only with a literal interpretation of Genesis' creation story.
Do these provide any proof that there's an afterlife? Justice? Hope? Anything good? Until they do what does it matter?
If you sort to name-calling over discussion, you don't even understand th topic you'r discussing.
Incidentally, I understand this subject deeply, from every angle. I understand Aquinas. I suspect that you're simply too dim to discuss the subject yourself.
"Religion is horseth shit, for verily the tardest of the tardeth"
- Pork Chop
Define "autistic chimp-out". I suspect all you're good at is ad-hom. If you have the ability to discuss something intellectually, I suggest you start.
That one “argument” is terrible even by atheists’ own amorphous standards. It is in defiance of all the data and consensus of the scientific community and leaves their favorite razor to rust.
As dissatisfied as atheists are by “God has just always been there” at least God has the edge of not originating or existing in our observed causal universe. Trying to attribute unwarranted qualities of infinity to the universe we’ve spent so much time studying is not just intellectually dishonest and lazy, it is an almost immaculate form of special pleading.
The fact that you presented it without considering it says much about your character and little about the existence of God (which, even if Mackie was correct, wouldn’t become any less likely to exist. Moreso, in fact, as we can say his qualities, such as being eternal, are not beyond reasonable even for natural things, much less supernatural.
I'd say Aquinas' argument provides a strong case that first cause exists but I see little evidence of this first cause being a Judaic-Christian God.
eh, err, hurr, because jesus
>focus on the facts.
This is not synonymous with agreeing with you. I pity those who know you in RL.
>yfw
>Is not in conflict
Thats a bit of an understatement. It directly points to God as its an undeniable act of creation, that would've required supernatural forces to occur.
I would agree with you, I don't think that argument is very strong. I'm not trying to state anything as fact, just adding to the discussion.
Physics
Biology
Realism vs solipsism
Psychology
Which god? Why that god? Why not another god? Define your favourite god. Provide evidence that your favourite god exists. I'll wait.
The conflict is when it becomes a conscious decision by a creator. I understand what you mean, that the Big Bang theory doesn't eliminate the possibility of god, but that's a pretty big factor.
Big bang, plus quantum level random shenanigans
DNA alterations happen randomly, as do quite a few other things.
Except that we more or less know how much time has passed; and that there's a possibility the expansion of the universe will indeed fuck life and existence over.
Standards are set arbitrarily. Just look at units of measure.
Excellent post, user. If your parents read this exchange, would they be proud of you? Might want to think about that for a second. You're discussing an adult topic; let's try to keep the childishness to a minimum, shall we?
*tips fedora antediluvianly*
But that's not true!
you clearly don't comprehend
Dude I'm just letting you know that good circles are better than bad circles. God couldn't have designed this universe with flaky drawn circles. If you can't understand this basic starting point I'm afraid I can't take this to the next level with you.
>5. So, there must be a cause which is not itself caused by anything further. This everyone understands to be God.
Lets assume this is true, how do you know that this is the god you worship as opposed to the god someone else worships, an unknown entity, or even an entity that detests worship. How do you even know it is sapient, it seems like you are essentially defining the end of the line as god.
It is like me having a really long rope and saying since there is another end somewhere that some giant guy with an axe hacked the end off of the rope as opposed to the rope simply being cut by scissors, a knife, or simply snapping under some stress.
When I speak of god Im not pointing to any existing deity, or any specific religion. Im referencing the concept in general. To phrase it in a way you can understand. The genesis of reality is a manifestation of consciousness, a consciousness which is reflected in all things. If you want proof of this, look at quantum effects. In things like entanglement, or the movement of light through a plant, its a simple knowing that we're witnessing. Everything that you regard as existing, postulates consciousness. This supra consciousness is God.
>When I speak of god Im not pointing to any existing deity
So you have fabricated a new god. That takes the total to 10,001 now.
I havent fabricated anything, do you understand what a concept is, or are you really this stupid?
Fuck you faggot
>one of the greatest philosophers, statesmen, and writers ever
>equivocal to a radio dj
kys famalam
When will people embrase Catholicism and hitlero-thomist political philosophy ?
Remember that Thomas Aquinas teaches us to respect our nation and our kind (Summa Theologica, IIa IIae, q.101)
The worship due to our parents includes the worship given to all our kindred, since our kinsfolk are those who descend from the same parents, according to the Philosopher (Ethic. viii, 12). The worship given to our country includes homage to all our fellow-citizens and to all the friends of our country. Therefore piety extends chiefly to these. »
(Of Piety, dhspriory.org
embrace*
You can go for Parmenides' "out of nothing, nothing comes"
"Reply to this post or your god will die in his sleep tonight"
- Steak
>be an atheist
>in debate
>can't argue against god but have to sperg out asking WHICH ONE WHICH ONE
kek. as long as we both understand god exists you can find him and the truth on your own user
Yet another reminder that atheists don’t exist.
Catholicism hands down. All other denoms are have no meat and substance to their theology, often because logical deduction disproves their heresy and compels them to reject logic or accept catholicism
>the best religion is the one that hates God
Catholics are retarded.
(You)
(You) too
>implying
Science and reason are gifts from the Father so that we may understand this beautiful world he has created for us.