Login or register


Last status update:
Gender: male
Age: 44
Date Signed Up:11/26/2012
Last Login:11/10/2015
Content Thumbs: 2239 total,  2583 ,  344
Comment Thumbs: 999 total,  1055 ,  56
Content Level Progress: 99% (99/100)
Level 120 Content: Respected Member Of Famiry → Level 121 Content: Respected Member Of Famiry
Comment Level Progress: 10% (1/10)
Level 198 Comments: Anon Annihilator → Level 199 Comments: Anon Annihilator
Content Views:123511
Times Content Favorited:198 times
Total Comments Made:247
FJ Points:3104

latest user's comments

#132 - I think you missed his main point. If you have a caus…  [+] (7 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.
User avatar
#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.
User avatar
#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.
#276 - If you go to a foreign country for an extended period you are …  [+] (5 replies) 04/14/2014 on Land of freedom indeed +1
User avatar
#278 - amata (04/14/2014) [-]
Well, I'll admit that that is a pretty shitty thing for the government to do. However, in this case, the anon I was originally replying to said he "wanted to leave this country forever", so that law would nonetheless not apply.
#279 - admit (04/14/2014) [-]
#280 - amata (04/14/2014) [-]
I would apologize, but you knew exactly what you were getting into when you made that account. Admit it.
#281 - admit (04/14/2014) [-]
#282 - amata (04/14/2014) [-]
Sorry, but I don't have any more pictures of national heroes like Manson or Holmes. Have a picture of a sheep man instead.
[ 247 Total ]