It's not even about going backwards in time. This was @crensch's hang up and reason for denying logic. The argument works the same if the universe began with the big bang or if the universe always existed.
The argument applies to change right now, in the present moment. All change can be traced back to god, the prime mover of all.
I already explained this to crensch, but he lies and tells others I require logic to work before time, or that I don't understand physics but he does. He lies and says I use biologists to refute physicists, even though I gave him a bunch of physicists who criticized Krauss's book which crensch worships.
I'm not interested in ignoring them. I enjoy raping their worldview.
You can not specify any allegedly unproven assumptions. You are incapable. Your words are empty. Your criticism has no content. I challenge you to state which assumptions I've made that I haven't supported. You will fail.
Yeah, yeah. Come back when you can prove there is a sentient being in the role of changer. You made a false assumption. Live with it. Your logic is flawed.
He's falsely assuming that every changed must be assigned to a sentient entity. That's how he's always able to "prove" his god exists.
Yeah, yeah. Come back when you can prove there is a sentient being in the role of changer. You made a false assumption. Live with it. Your logic is flawed.
You are making this up.
In order to offer a rebuttal, specify which premise you are rebutting. You haven't.
Fact 1: There exists some thing that is changed.
Fact 2: If some thing changes, then that thing is changed by another.
Fact 3: If a thing is changed by another, then either there is an infinite regress of changed changers or there is an unchanged changer.
Fact 4. An infinite regress of changed changers is impossible.
It appears you're attacking premise 2. You'll notice that no where in premise 2 is the concept of sentience invoked.
I have now demonstrated successfully that your objection is without merit. You accuse me of making an assumption about sentience, but sentience is not mentioned anywhere in the proof.
Next time you think you are objecting to the argument, state which premise you're responding to. This couldn't be clearer, but you're a logic-denying uneducated idiot.
Your fact two is false. If the wind goes from calm to gusty, that change was not caused by another. It was caused by the heat of the sun, by local pressure systems, and by moisture/clouds. There is no one at the "weather control device" changing the setting from cloudy to sunny, from dry to rainy.
You can whine all you want and cry out that "someone" caused it, but that's the ranting of a child. You invalidated your argument by manipulating the input to gain the outcome you wanted.
There is literally no math that you're capable of that I'm not.
Your fact two is false. If the wind goes from calm to gusty, that change was not caused by another. It was caused by the heat of the sun, by local pressure systems, and by moisture/clouds.
Then it is changed by another.
There is no one at the "weather control device" changing the setting from cloudy to sunny, from dry to rainy.
I never suggested there was. I'm suggesting that the sun and the wind are different.
You can whine all you want and cry out that "someone" caused it
Except the word "someone" never appears in the argument at all. For the billionth time, state the premise you're responding to before responding to it. Nothing in premise 2 mentions sentience or "someone." You are making this up.
but that's the ranting of a child. You invalidated your argument by manipulating the input to gain the outcome you wanted.
Calling me a child doesn't make the argument unsound. The argument is valid. The "inputs" are 4 facts. The desired outcome is irrelevant to the actual outcome because we don't assess arguments based on the motivations and desires of their authors, because that would be ad hominem. We must accept where reason takes us.
I challenge you to find any notion of sentience or "someone" in premise 2.
Then something can be anything, but then will not be your all powerful creator/changer, because the "something" responsible for the change can be anything at all. The something will different for every change.
Don't you see a difference between saying "the prime mover argument is unsound" and saying "the prime mover argument is sound but 'something' can refer to anything at all other than god"?
Which position is yours, the first or the second?
Again, your argument proves nothing.
The argument proves a prime mover, which is exactly what it sets out to do. That's why it's called the proof for the prime mover, and not the proof that God is all loving.
For example, I can prove an even prime number exists.
This is different than proving there is exactly one even prime number.
If I offer you a sound proof of the existence of an even prime number, you cannot object by saying that I didn't offer you the proof of its uniqueness. That doesn't negate the soundness of the existence proof.
Here I am establishing that there are more than 0 things which change others but remain unchanged themselves. That is, there exists some thing which is an unchanged changer.
Objecting that there are millions of prime movers does not negate the result that some thing changes others while remaining itself unchanged.
In order for the argument to be unsound, you need to say there are no things which are unchanged changers.
Do you see that "there are no unchanged changers" is a different objection than "there are millions of unchanged changers"?
Either the things which cause change in other things change or do not change.
In the case that they don't change, you have many unchanged changers.
In the case that they do change, and there are no unchanged changers, you need to demonstrate a premise of the argument to be false. Reason has led us to there being some unchanged changer. You can't just dismiss the argument without stating what is false.
Yes, I do, in quite the same way as you when you pre-suppose your position that there is an "unchanged changer" and use it as the basis for your faulty logic.
He says: Say this with me now: There is no empirical premise There is no empirical premise There is no empirical premise If you think otherwise, cite me an empirical source showing that change exists in our universe and I will concede this entire argument to you, admit that Aquinas is right, accept God, and write a long winded essay admitting that I was wrong that you can plaster anywhere you want over this site.
Look at idiot @Crensch here simply say "rejected" to fact 2, that whatever is changing is being changed by another, instead of articulating an objection in any way: http://archive.is/Ymy9y
Then look at him making absurd claims about before time, logic requiring time, and talking about logic breaking down at the big bang, as reasons that he doesn't need to respect logic. http://archive.is/webfI
And in this submission, idiot @stretched_girl demonstrated her disdain for logic, and falsely claimed that the right logic could establish the flatness of Earth.
Atheists claim to go where reason takes them, but they are an illogical and faithful bunch. How much worse can you get than directly saying fuck you to logic, as idiots Crensch and stretched_girl hysterically do?
Simply stated, there are 4 factual premises, and they can't rebut any of them.
They are illogical. They deny logic in order to hold to their faith in atheism. They have no reasonable response or objection to this perfectly logical argument. They simply deny logic in order to hold to their faith. They are irrational cult members.
My position is well articulated. The prime mover argument is sound. They can't rebut any premise. Facts.
stretched_girl ago
Sure, no problems.
stretched_girl ago
LOL, hey, are you an English teacher? ;-)
stretched_girl ago
He's falsely assuming that every changed must be assigned to a sentient entity.
That's how he's always able to "prove" his god exists.
antiracist3 ago
It's not even about going backwards in time. This was @crensch's hang up and reason for denying logic. The argument works the same if the universe began with the big bang or if the universe always existed.
The argument applies to change right now, in the present moment. All change can be traced back to god, the prime mover of all.
I already explained this to crensch, but he lies and tells others I require logic to work before time, or that I don't understand physics but he does. He lies and says I use biologists to refute physicists, even though I gave him a bunch of physicists who criticized Krauss's book which crensch worships.
I'm not interested in ignoring them. I enjoy raping their worldview.
@stretched_girl @eagleshigh @SarMegahhikkitha @bojangles
@FrozenFire74 @TheodoreKent
stretched_girl ago
LOLS, yeah, sure. Keep on expending that effort. Knock yourself out.
Awfuldarwinism ago
Stfu stupid cunt.
stretched_girl ago
Aw, did I hurt your feelings by calling you out foir basing your logic on unproven assumptions?
Poor, poor thing.
CrenschIsAHugeIdiot ago
Logic.
You can not specify any allegedly unproven assumptions. You are incapable. Your words are empty. Your criticism has no content. I challenge you to state which assumptions I've made that I haven't supported. You will fail.
@eagleshigh @SarMegahhikkitha
stretched_girl ago
Yeah, yeah. Come back when you can prove there is a sentient being in the role of changer. You made a false assumption. Live with it. Your logic is flawed.
CrenschIsAHugeIdiot ago
You are making this up.
In order to offer a rebuttal, specify which premise you are rebutting. You haven't.
Fact 1: There exists some thing that is changed.
Fact 2: If some thing changes, then that thing is changed by another.
Fact 3: If a thing is changed by another, then either there is an infinite regress of changed changers or there is an unchanged changer.
Fact 4. An infinite regress of changed changers is impossible.
It appears you're attacking premise 2. You'll notice that no where in premise 2 is the concept of sentience invoked.
I have now demonstrated successfully that your objection is without merit. You accuse me of making an assumption about sentience, but sentience is not mentioned anywhere in the proof.
Next time you think you are objecting to the argument, state which premise you're responding to. This couldn't be clearer, but you're a logic-denying uneducated idiot.
@planko @eagleshigh @SarMegahhikkitha @crensch @bojangles
stretched_girl ago
Your fact two is false. If the wind goes from calm to gusty, that change was not caused by another. It was caused by the heat of the sun, by local pressure systems, and by moisture/clouds. There is no one at the "weather control device" changing the setting from cloudy to sunny, from dry to rainy.
You can whine all you want and cry out that "someone" caused it, but that's the ranting of a child. You invalidated your argument by manipulating the input to gain the outcome you wanted.
Try taking some math, too.
@planko @eagleshigh @SarMegahhikkitha @crensch @bojangles
Antiracist7 ago
There is literally no math that you're capable of that I'm not.
Then it is changed by another.
I never suggested there was. I'm suggesting that the sun and the wind are different.
Except the word "someone" never appears in the argument at all. For the billionth time, state the premise you're responding to before responding to it. Nothing in premise 2 mentions sentience or "someone." You are making this up.
Calling me a child doesn't make the argument unsound. The argument is valid. The "inputs" are 4 facts. The desired outcome is irrelevant to the actual outcome because we don't assess arguments based on the motivations and desires of their authors, because that would be ad hominem. We must accept where reason takes us.
I challenge you to find any notion of sentience or "someone" in premise 2.
@FrozenFire74 @planko @eagleshigh @SarMegahhikkitha @crensch @bojangles
stretched_girl ago
"Another" in that context implies a sentience.
Otherwise, it would simple say, "Something."
Antiracist7 ago
Change the word to something. The argument goes through the same.
Fact 1: There exists some thing that is changed.
Fact 2: If some thing changes, then that thing is changed by
anothersome THING else.Fact 3: If a thing is changed by another, then either there is an infinite regress of changed changers or there is an unchanged changer.
Fact 4. An infinite regress of changed changers is impossible.
Therefore, there is SOME THING which is the unchanged changer.
stretched_girl ago
Then something can be anything, but then will not be your all powerful creator/changer, because the "something" responsible for the change can be anything at all. The something will different for every change.
Again, your argument proves nothing.
Antiracist7 ago
Don't you see a difference between saying "the prime mover argument is unsound" and saying "the prime mover argument is sound but 'something' can refer to anything at all other than god"?
Which position is yours, the first or the second?
The argument proves a prime mover, which is exactly what it sets out to do. That's why it's called the proof for the prime mover, and not the proof that God is all loving.
stretched_girl ago
There is no individual "prime mover," that's the point.
Antiracist7 ago
There are existence proofs and uniqueness proofs.
For example, I can prove an even prime number exists.
This is different than proving there is exactly one even prime number.
If I offer you a sound proof of the existence of an even prime number, you cannot object by saying that I didn't offer you the proof of its uniqueness. That doesn't negate the soundness of the existence proof.
Here I am establishing that there are more than 0 things which change others but remain unchanged themselves. That is, there exists some thing which is an unchanged changer.
Objecting that there are millions of prime movers does not negate the result that some thing changes others while remaining itself unchanged.
In order for the argument to be unsound, you need to say there are no things which are unchanged changers.
Do you see that "there are no unchanged changers" is a different objection than "there are millions of unchanged changers"?
Which position are you taking?
stretched_girl ago
I say that even changers change.
1NOnlyAntiracist ago
Is that the same as saying there are no unchanged changers, or are you saying something slightly different?
stretched_girl ago
Changers can change. Water freezes, wind carries less or more dust, the temperature differs day by day.
1NOnlyAntiracist ago
Things are made up of what is actual and what is potential. For example, you're actually awake, and potentially asleep.
An acorn is actually a seed, but potentially a tree. It is not potentially a chicken.
Do you agree with this?
stretched_girl ago
yes
antiracist ago
Then change involves a conversion from potentiality into actuality.
Because of fact 2, that everything is changed by something else, the causal chain must end with something that is pure actuality and no potentiality.
Such a thing could never change, because to change implies potentiality. But if it had potentiality, it couldn't be the prime mover to begin with.
The prime mover is a being of pure act, so change for it is impossible.
stretched_girl ago
There is no prime mover. There are only things (Many things) that cause change in other things.
No "Prime" mover.
antiracist ago
Either the things which cause change in other things change or do not change.
In the case that they don't change, you have many unchanged changers.
In the case that they do change, and there are no unchanged changers, you need to demonstrate a premise of the argument to be false. Reason has led us to there being some unchanged changer. You can't just dismiss the argument without stating what is false.
stretched_girl ago
LOLS, oh, do get on with it. There is no single entity responsible for creation or change.
You are just about a thick as a brick and as intractable as the most dyed-in-the-wool jehovah's witness.
But go ahead and believe what you wish if you need it to feel at peace.
Antiracist10 ago
@plankO, notice how stretched_girl denies logic and merely asserts her position.
@Crensch @SarMegahhikkitha @eagleshigh @bojangles
stretched_girl ago
Yes, I do, in quite the same way as you when you pre-suppose your position that there is an "unchanged changer" and use it as the basis for your faulty logic.
Antiracist10 ago
Which premise is false? 2? You already admitted the wind and sun are different.
So what is your position? Many unchanged changers or none?
@plankO @Crensch @SarMegahhikkitha @eagleshigh @bojangles @frozenfire74
Tell me which of the 4 premises pre-supposes an unchanged changer.
stretched_girl ago
Neither of the items you listed are unchanging.
I have little time to browse and I'm getting tired of you.
antiracist ago
None or many. Pick.
Antiracist10 ago
You don't get tired of being a stupid logic-denying cunt who doesn't answer questions.
Does this pre-suppose an unchanged changer, Y/N?
Does this pre-suppose an unchanged changer, Y/N?
Does this pre-suppose an unchanged changer, Y/N?
Does this pre-suppose an unchanged changer, Y/N?
@plankO @Crensch @SarMegahhikkitha @eagleshigh @bojangles @frozenfire74
antiracist ago
It already is in layman's terms. Just remove the mathy looking stuff.
Fact 1: There exists some thing that is changed.
Fact 2: If some thing changes, then that thing is changed by another.
Fact 3: If a thing is changed by another, then either there is an infinite regress of changed changers or there is an unchanged changer.
Fact 4. An infinite regress of changed changers is impossible.
Therefore, there is an unchanged changer.
Atheists display their irrationality. Here is one denying fact 1, that change exists: https://voat.co/v/atheism/1064083/5315243/10#5315243
He says: Say this with me now: There is no empirical premise There is no empirical premise There is no empirical premise If you think otherwise, cite me an empirical source showing that change exists in our universe and I will concede this entire argument to you, admit that Aquinas is right, accept God, and write a long winded essay admitting that I was wrong that you can plaster anywhere you want over this site.
To which I reply: http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
Look at idiot @Crensch here simply say "rejected" to fact 2, that whatever is changing is being changed by another, instead of articulating an objection in any way: http://archive.is/Ymy9y
Then look at him making absurd claims about before time, logic requiring time, and talking about logic breaking down at the big bang, as reasons that he doesn't need to respect logic. http://archive.is/webfI
And in this submission, idiot @stretched_girl demonstrated her disdain for logic, and falsely claimed that the right logic could establish the flatness of Earth.
Atheists claim to go where reason takes them, but they are an illogical and faithful bunch. How much worse can you get than directly saying fuck you to logic, as idiots Crensch and stretched_girl hysterically do?
@eagleshigh @SarMegahhikkitha @bojangles
@FrozenFire74 @TheodoreKent
stretched_girl ago
I think that's an emotional issue.
antiracist ago
@planko. Here's my position: This argument is sound:
C = some thing is Changed
A = changed by Another
~I = an Infinite regress of changed changers is impossible
U = there is an Unchanged changer
P1: C. (There exists some thing that is changed.)
P2: C→A. (If some thing changes, then that thing is changed by another.)
P3: A→(IvU). (If a thing is changed by another, then either there is an infinite regress of changed changers or there is an unchanged changer.)
P4: ~I. (An infinite regress of changed changers is impossible.)
T1: A. (By P1, P2, Modus Ponens.)
T2: IvU. (By P3, T1, Modus Ponens.)
T3: U. (By P4, T2, Disjunctive Syllogism.)
There is an unchanged changer.
@stretched_girl and @crensch are uneducated and can not address logic.
Simply stated, there are 4 factual premises, and they can't rebut any of them.
They are illogical. They deny logic in order to hold to their faith in atheism. They have no reasonable response or objection to this perfectly logical argument. They simply deny logic in order to hold to their faith. They are irrational cult members.
My position is well articulated. The prime mover argument is sound. They can't rebut any premise. Facts.
@eagleshigh @SarMegahhikkitha @bojangles
@FrozenFire74 @TheodoreKent
stretched_girl ago
He's annoyed because I belittled his god of logic. With the right logic and false assumptions, you can prove anything.
For proof, just read his rants.
antiracist_fuck-voat ago
God, atheists are dumb! Fuck logic amirite?!
I also pwned idiot @Crensch here too. Hilarious.
@SarMegahhikkitha @eagleshigh @bojangles @stretched_girl
stretched_girl ago
Yes, you are fairly hilarious. Repetitive, but still good for a chuckle.