The Second Proof of God

[Montrovant]

Wait, now you're calling morality a law of nature?

You don't believe that you are morally evolving?

I don't believe that morality is a law of nature.

The you shouldn't mind answering my question.

I think that I, like most people, have evolving morals throughout life.

How can that be possible? Don't you believe that all behaviors lead to equal outcomes?

Where have I ever indicated such a thing? Do you think you are arguing with someone else?

 

[ScienceRocks]

Making shit up to feel good about yourself seems to be the entire point of your threads.

Show me some pictures of this god or real solid evidence for this god...Until you do, well, why should this crap be part of our society?

 

[ScienceRocks]

Appear before me god.

Your people shouldn't have to make shit up for you being real if you were real.

 

[ding]

It is called logic and since you don't even realize the question you asked was already answered in the proof, it went over your head.

So which one of your brilliant points answered it?

That would be which one of Aquinas' brilliant points answered it.

Points 6 though 9.

One big hole in your "logic" is right here: it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.

Ir it could be something other than God. You make absolutely no compelling argument supporting the idea that the "first efficient cause" is God.

I don't think you understood it.

Your argument is based entirely on faith. There's no logic to it and nothing else to understand.

I wish it was my argument. That is Aquinias' argument.

 

[ding]

And I am not saying that morality is a law I am saying that natural moral laws exist which naturally lead to order and harmony.

I'm afraid I'm not understanding you. What is a natural moral law?

That's funny because the Greeks understood this thousands of years ago.

Great. You should have no trouble explaining it, then. You seem to avoid doing that a lot, however.

You mean besides the fact that you are disingenuous and irrational?

Tell you what from now on, I'm going to talk over you. I think you've earned it.

 

[ding]

You don't believe that you are morally evolving?

I don't believe that morality is a law of nature.

The you shouldn't mind answering my question.

I think that I, like most people, have evolving morals throughout life.

How can that be possible? Don't you believe that all behaviors lead to equal outcomes?

Where have I ever indicated such a thing? Do you think you are arguing with someone else?

Doesn't matter anymore. You've proven your true character.

 

[Taz]

The Second Way: Argument from Efficient Causes

1. We perceive a series of efficient causes of things in the world.
   
   
2. Nothing exists prior to itself.
   
   
3. Therefore nothing [in the world of things we perceive] is the efficient cause of itself.
   
   
4. If a previous efficient cause does not exist, neither does the thing that results (the effect).
   
   
5. Therefore if the first thing in a series does not exist, nothing in the series exists.
   
   
6. If the series of efficient causes extends ad infinitum into the past, for then there would be no things existing now.
   
   
7. That is plainly false (i.e., there are things existing now that came about through efficient causes).
   
   
8. Therefore efficient causes do not extend ad infinitum into the past.
   
   
9. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.

"Nothing exists prior to itself." God included.

 

[Montrovant]

And I am not saying that morality is a law I am saying that natural moral laws exist which naturally lead to order and harmony.

I'm afraid I'm not understanding you. What is a natural moral law?

That's funny because the Greeks understood this thousands of years ago.

Great. You should have no trouble explaining it, then. You seem to avoid doing that a lot, however.

You mean besides the fact that you are disingenuous and irrational?

Tell you what from now on, I'm going to talk over you. I think you've earned it.

And yet again, you refuse to give a simple explanation for something. Then you somehow want to blame me for it.

 

[Montrovant]

I don't believe that morality is a law of nature.

The you shouldn't mind answering my question.

I think that I, like most people, have evolving morals throughout life.

How can that be possible? Don't you believe that all behaviors lead to equal outcomes?

Where have I ever indicated such a thing? Do you think you are arguing with someone else?

Doesn't matter anymore. You've proven your true character.

You make a claim that I believe something, I ask when I've ever said something like that, and you just blithely pass it right by. You might want to consider your own character, when you both refuse to give definitions for terms you use and refuse to explain why you think I believe something I've never said or hinted at.

 

[Taz]

So what's the first proof of god? Does it make any more sense than the second one?

 

[Montrovant]

So what's the first proof of god? Does it make any more sense than the second one?

Thomas Aquinas came up with five ways to prove god exists. Here's the first way:
The First Way: Argument from Motion

1. Our senses prove that some things are in motion.
   
   
2. Things move when potential motion becomes actual motion.
   
   
3. Only an actual motion can convert a potential motion into an actual motion.
   
   
4. Nothing can be at once in both actuality and potentiality in the same respect (i.e., if both actual and potential, it is actual in one respect and potential in another).
   
   
5. Therefore nothing can move itself.
   
   
6. Therefore each thing in motion is moved by something else.
   
   
7. The sequence of motion cannot extend ad infinitum.
   
   
8. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

Aquinas: Five Ways to Prove that God exists -- The Arguments

 

[Picaro]

If nothing else, you accomplished having me go look this up and find out it's from Thomas Aquinas, and also read some rebuttals to it.

One thing that struck me is that this second way leads to the conclusion that there must be at least one first cause. However, it allows for multiple first causes.

Here are a couple of the discussions I read about this:
https://www3.nd.edu/~jspeaks/courses/2009-10/10100/LECTURES/3-second-way.pdf
Thomas Aquinas, "The Argument from Efficient Cause"

All of the rebuttals aren't really rebuttals; they redefine words differently from Aquina's established definitions and then segue from there into unrelated arguments, i.e. they make up their own 'arguments' to rebut.

Formal logic is ultimately incorrect in the first place; it is circular reasoning, a function of definitions. This is why you will find philosophy majors who claim they can take any side of an argument, and win a debate with you; they understand the rules, while most average people don't, even those who take Philosophy 101, intro to logic.

Few go on to take 102, where the most useful logic is taught, informal logic. This is the course where you learn that many of the 'fallacies' you were taught to memorize in 101 are actually valid arguments in some cases, like ad homs; a lot of you really are stupid, for instance, so it isn't necessarily a fallacy.

 

[irosie91]

So what's the first proof of god? Does it make any more sense than the second one?

Thomas Aquinas came up with five ways to prove god exists. Here's the first way:
The First Way: Argument from Motion

1. Our senses prove that some things are in motion.
   
   
2. Things move when potential motion becomes actual motion.
   
   
3. Only an actual motion can convert a potential motion into an actual motion.
   
   
4. Nothing can be at once in both actuality and potentiality in the same respect (i.e., if both actual and potential, it is actual in one respect and potential in another).
   
   
5. Therefore nothing can move itself.
   
   
6. Therefore each thing in motion is moved by something else.
   
   
7. The sequence of motion cannot extend ad infinitum.
   
   
8. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

Aquinas: Five Ways to Prove that God exists -- The Arguments

LOL----SATAN is----FRICTION

 

[bgrouse]

So which one of your brilliant points answered it?

That would be which one of Aquinas' brilliant points answered it.

Points 6 though 9.

One big hole in your "logic" is right here: it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.

Ir it could be something other than God. You make absolutely no compelling argument supporting the idea that the "first efficient cause" is God.

I don't think you understood it.

Your argument is based entirely on faith. There's no logic to it and nothing else to understand.

I wish it was my argument. That is Aquinias' argument.

I guess he was a moron. And you're even worse for repeating what he said.

 

[bgrouse]

So what's the first proof of god? Does it make any more sense than the second one?

Thomas Aquinas came up with five ways to prove god exists. Here's the first way:
The First Way: Argument from Motion

1. Our senses prove that some things are in motion.
   
   
2. Things move when potential motion becomes actual motion.
   
   
3. Only an actual motion can convert a potential motion into an actual motion.
   
   
4. Nothing can be at once in both actuality and potentiality in the same respect (i.e., if both actual and potential, it is actual in one respect and potential in another).
   
   
5. Therefore nothing can move itself.
   
   
6. Therefore each thing in motion is moved by something else.
   
   
7. The sequence of motion cannot extend ad infinitum.
   
   
8. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

Aquinas: Five Ways to Prove that God exists -- The Arguments

Aquinas was an idiot. Or at least he catered to them. Nothing more than "I don't know, so God," followed by a lie. I wouldn't even honor it by calling it pseudoscience.

 

[ding]

That would be which one of Aquinas' brilliant points answered it.

Points 6 though 9.

One big hole in your "logic" is right here: it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.

Ir it could be something other than God. You make absolutely no compelling argument supporting the idea that the "first efficient cause" is God.

I don't think you understood it.

Your argument is based entirely on faith. There's no logic to it and nothing else to understand.

I wish it was my argument. That is Aquinias' argument.

I guess he was a moron. And you're even worse for repeating what he said.

Everyone is entitled to their opinions.

 

[bgrouse]

One big hole in your "logic" is right here: it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.

Ir it could be something other than God. You make absolutely no compelling argument supporting the idea that the "first efficient cause" is God.

I don't think you understood it.

Your argument is based entirely on faith. There's no logic to it and nothing else to understand.

I wish it was my argument. That is Aquinias' argument.

I guess he was a moron. And you're even worse for repeating what he said.

Everyone is entitled to their opinions.

And you're entitled to your faith, just as I'm entitled to point out your failed attempt at science as nothing more than faith.

 

[ding]

I don't think you understood it.

Your argument is based entirely on faith. There's no logic to it and nothing else to understand.

I wish it was my argument. That is Aquinias' argument.

I guess he was a moron. And you're even worse for repeating what he said.

Everyone is entitled to their opinions.

And you're entitled to your faith, just as I'm entitled to point out your failed attempt at science as nothing more than faith.

You've got critical theory down to a science.

 

[ding]

The you shouldn't mind answering my question.

I think that I, like most people, have evolving morals throughout life.

How can that be possible? Don't you believe that all behaviors lead to equal outcomes?

Where have I ever indicated such a thing? Do you think you are arguing with someone else?

Doesn't matter anymore. You've proven your true character.

You make a claim that I believe something, I ask when I've ever said something like that, and you just blithely pass it right by. You might want to consider your own character, when you both refuse to give definitions for terms you use and refuse to explain why you think I believe something I've never said or hinted at.

I can do anything I want. I don't need you to get my message out. You have been weighed and measured and found to be lacking.

 

[ding]

If nothing else, you accomplished having me go look this up and find out it's from Thomas Aquinas, and also read some rebuttals to it.

One thing that struck me is that this second way leads to the conclusion that there must be at least one first cause. However, it allows for multiple first causes.

Here are a couple of the discussions I read about this:
https://www3.nd.edu/~jspeaks/courses/2009-10/10100/LECTURES/3-second-way.pdf
Thomas Aquinas, "The Argument from Efficient Cause"

All of the rebuttals aren't really rebuttals; they redefine words differently from Aquina's established definitions and then segue from there into unrelated arguments, i.e. they make up their own 'arguments' to rebut.

Formal logic is ultimately incorrect in the first place; it is circular reasoning, a function of definitions. This is why you will find philosophy majors who claim they can take any side of an argument, and win a debate with you; they understand the rules, while most average people don't, even those who take Philosophy 101, intro to logic.

Few go on to take 102, where the most useful logic is taught, informal logic. This is the course where you learn that many of the 'fallacies' you were taught to memorize in 101 are actually valid arguments in some cases, like ad homs; a lot of you really are stupid, for instance, so it isn't necessarily a fallacy.

Thank you. I agree 100%.