Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search

hide menu

repostal    

Rank #16870 on Comments
repostal Avatar Level 197 Comments: Anon Annihilator
Offline
Send mail to repostal Block repostal Invite repostal to be your friend flag avatar
Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Gender: male
Age: 42
Date Signed Up:11/26/2012
Last Login:10/17/2014
Location:Heavyvan
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#16870
Highest Content Rank:#3756
Highest Comment Rank:#5640
Content Thumbs: 1622 total,  1921 ,  299
Comment Thumbs: 988 total,  1043 ,  55
Content Level Progress: 22% (22/100)
Level 116 Content: Funny Junkie → Level 117 Content: Funny Junkie
Comment Level Progress: 10% (1/10)
Level 197 Comments: Anon Annihilator → Level 198 Comments: Anon Annihilator
Subscribers:0
Content Views:93580
Times Content Favorited:83 times
Total Comments Made:245
FJ Points:2617

latest user's comments

#61 - I think this is what he is talking about. His 'mass at rest' … 10/17/2014 on nerds +1
#910 - Cummin for the comments 10/16/2014 on why do you love our fj family? 0
#7 - Picture 10/12/2014 on When an MMO goes free to play +3
#6 - Yes...Pon de floor  [+] (1 new reply) 10/12/2014 on When an MMO goes free to play +7
#7 - repostal (10/12/2014) [-]
#277 - All these rolls and I'm just like: 09/29/2014 on My psychic power 0
#77 - Funnyjunk version 09/29/2014 on secrets revealed +7
#165 - Good points on my examples. I guess with my second example it … 09/28/2014 on context +1
#153 - The best counterargument is that the 'first mover" hypoth…  [+] (2 new replies) 09/27/2014 on context +2
User avatar #155 - zzitro (09/27/2014) [-]
I agree, though personally I lean towards option 2.

You also brought up some interesting possibilities. My thought is that they are similar or could fall under the 2 options.
- Wouldn't the more advanced society have the same problem, unless their laws of physics are so fundamentally different we can't imagine what life would be like?

- If there is a first point in time, even if time can cycle to that point would there need to be an event outside of time to cause that first point? Or an event that occurs at that point as well?
User avatar #165 - repostal (09/28/2014) [-]
Good points on my examples. I guess with my second example it would be that the first event just occurred. ie the universe just suddenly appeared out of nothing with no cause - which is like your option 2, but without any cause.
Personally, I think a first mover is fairly logical, but wanted to put another argument out since I don't think either can be proved on logic alone.
#132 - I think you missed his main point. If you have a caus…  [+] (7 new replies) 09/27/2014 on context +1
User avatar #135 - zzitro (09/27/2014) [-]
Yes, I wasn't discussing the religious concept of a god, but rather the concept of a first cause - God.

This "first cause" entity is a necessity if we are to avoid the first option. An entity that actualize potentials without it itself having a cause could only be labeled as God. This is the God that Einstein believed in, as well as many other scientists around the world.

Frankly I was hoping you could expose a better counter argument than your are wrong and stupid. Especially since I didn't preach religion or deny a scientific claim.
User avatar #153 - repostal (09/27/2014) [-]
The best counterargument is that the 'first mover" hypothesis doesn't really prove much. Option 1 seems about as logical as option 2, in either case something is required to have existed forever - either natural or supernatural. And if it is a supernatural 'first mover' it may not have a conscious mind, so 'god' would have a very loose definition in this case.

Other options could also be possible
- We are a simulation of a more advanced society
- Spacetime is curved so that there is a natural first point with nothing before it. Similar to how you cant go farther north than the north pole>.
User avatar #155 - zzitro (09/27/2014) [-]
I agree, though personally I lean towards option 2.

You also brought up some interesting possibilities. My thought is that they are similar or could fall under the 2 options.
- Wouldn't the more advanced society have the same problem, unless their laws of physics are so fundamentally different we can't imagine what life would be like?

- If there is a first point in time, even if time can cycle to that point would there need to be an event outside of time to cause that first point? Or an event that occurs at that point as well?
User avatar #165 - repostal (09/28/2014) [-]
Good points on my examples. I guess with my second example it would be that the first event just occurred. ie the universe just suddenly appeared out of nothing with no cause - which is like your option 2, but without any cause.
Personally, I think a first mover is fairly logical, but wanted to put another argument out since I don't think either can be proved on logic alone.
#138 - greyhoundfd (09/27/2014) [-]
I know, I get that, but that's not what Thomas Aquinas was trying to prove. I get that you're not defending the Catholic God or anything like that, but you're defending Thomas Aquinas' views on Theology. If you said "I agree with his ideas of a first cause, but I don't think it was a religious god" then your argument makes sense. Trying to claim that Thomas Aquinas wasn't trying to prove that God exists actually is "wrong and stupid" which, regardless of what you've been told to protect your self-esteem, is possible.

I don't think that religious people as a collective do or don't "have brains", but I'll tell you for certain that the ones who do won't be the ones taking legitimate philosophical ideas and then make them things that they aren't, then acting condescendingly when people call them out on it.

Also, you've made an incredibly basic mistake which is labeling "a god" as a proper noun. You don't use the word "Allah" or "Yahweh" to describe a generic supernatural being, so don't use "God". Just say "a god" or "a supernatural event". Yes, I might be harsh, but when people like you start debating and using the wrong terms, bastardizing philosophies, and then implying that I'm the ignorant one.

Jesus Christ, I usually don't recommend this but you need to taking a fucking philosophy course.
User avatar #154 - zzitro (09/27/2014) [-]
So your saying that I am wrong because I used a part of Aquinas' argument and he was trying to defend the Catholic God?
I never claimed he wasn't trying to prove the Catholic God, I am also not using his entire argument.

Also I believe that if anything is to be labeled God it should be this entity. It is not just a "supernatural event" an event has a cause, I am labeling this as an entity since it does not have a cause. Even if this entity doesn't interact.

In any case this is a purely a philosophical argument. I am not stating that this is a truth, but exposing the my logic behind my statements. I am willing to change my opinion and listen to any points you may have. However you haven't really brought up any points yourself (save the labeling, I will agree that there is room for argument there). Saying you are wrong because you are ignorant isn't really doing that for me.
Granted I have not taken any philosophy course, an explanation as to why you disagree would be better than thats not right.
#172 - greyhoundfd (09/28/2014) [-]
My point is that if you want to defend not-the-catholic-God, then you need to be phrasing things better. If you want to say that there might be a supernatural origin for the universe, then say that instead of "God created the universe because xyz" and then later trying to cover it up by saying "I'm not talking about God, I'm talking about a supernatural event".

If I stood up and loudly shouted "ALLAH IS GREAT" and then when people got mad said that I consider allah the same thing as life, and I meant "Life is great", then no one would be willing to acknowledge that as a valid argument.

Your entire argument up until I called you out on it consisted of "God exists, Thomas Aquinas had a proof for it, so accept what I'm saying.", not "A supernatural event created the universe, we should consider it the equivalent of God, Thomas Aquinas has an explanation that works for this."

Regardless of where this goes, you're still wrong because Einstein was a spinozist, and neither believed in a metaphysical "god" as an explanation for the origin of the universe, nor in a physical/personal "God" like Christianity did.
#125 - Basis of this argument: In order for anything… 09/27/2014 on context 0
[ 245 Total ]
Show:
Sort by:
Order:

items

Total unique items point value: 1050 / Total items point value: 1150

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Per page:
Order:
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
 Friends (0)