Here are the fucking premises. Pick which you want to call false AND WHY and I'll defend it.
P1: Change exists
P2: If some thing changes, then that thing is changed by another.
P3: If a thing is changed by another, then either there is an infinite regress of changed changers or there is an unchanged changer.
P4: An infinite regress of changed changers is impossible.
You can tell me P1 is false because change doesn't exist. Do you want to do that?
You can tell me that P2 is false because something changes itself. Do you want to do that?
You can say P3 is false because there are more options than an infinite or finite sequence of changers.
You can say P4 is false because an infinite sequence of changers is possible.
WHAT STRATEGY DO YOU WANT TO USE?! LINKING SHITTY ARTICLES AND CALLING AQUINAS OLD IS NOT A VALID RESPONSE!
your turn, bitch.
Okay. What you linked me was retarded.
It's clear the author, like you, knows nothing of what he's talking about.
The argument has committed the logical fallacy known as begging the question.
NO IT DIDN'T! FOR THAT TO HAPPEN THE CONCLUSION OF THE UNMOVED MOVER WOULD HAVE TO BE STATED IN THE PREMISES AND IT'S NOT!
This argument posited more questions than answers. Aquinas concluded that the first mover must be God. However, what motivated God to make the first move?
WE DON'T NEED TO ANSWER DIFFERENT QUESTIONS! THAT'S NOT HOW AN ARGUMENT IS SHOWN TO BE UNSOUND!
IF I PROVE THERE ARE INFINITE PRIMES, DON'T ASK ME HOW MANY PRIMES ARE BENEATH 1,000,000 AND EXPECT THAT INABILITY TO ANSWER THAT NEW QUESTION REFUTES THE PROOF OF THE INFINITUDE OF PRIMES!
Although motion cannot have infinite regression, this argument assumed that God had been either not moving from infinity or he has been moving ever since.
WHAT THE FUCK?! GOD DOESN'T MOVE! HE'S THE UNMOVED MOVER!
What then is the source of his energy?
WHAT THE FUCK?! WE'RE DOING METAPHYSICS, NOT PHYSICS! YOUR ENERGY TERM DOES NOT HAVE MORE CLOUT THAN THE ACTUALITY TERM! GOD IS THE SOURCE OF ENERGY! THIS SAME STUPID QUESTION CAN BE ASKED OF MATTER AND ENERGY! WHERE DOES ENERGY GET ITS ENERGY FROM ROOFLES?!?!?!
If nothing can move itself, how then God was able to move himself?
GOD DOESN'T MOVE! THE FUCKING POINT OF THE ARGUMENT IS THAT HE DOESN'T MOVE!
Cosmologically, it can also be equally valid that an impersonal, unconscious force or energy was the first unmoved mover.
FUCKING FINE AND IRRELEVANT! THAT AN IMPERSONAL FORCE IS THE UNMOVED MOVER DOESN'T REFUTE THE ARGUMENT FOR THE EXISTENCE OF THE UNMOVED MOVER! FUCK! TO ESTABLISH THAT THE UNMOVED MOVER IS A PERSONAL FORCE IS THE TOPIC OF A DIFFERENT ARGUMENT! FUCK!
For instance, according to the Big Bag Theory, all motions, space, energy and matter can be traced back to a singularity at the beginning of the universe. This theory is supported by measurable and verifiable parameters such as the rate of expansion of the universe, the cosmic microwave background radiation and the distances between galaxies.
NO ONE GIVES A SHIT! THIS IS COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT! IF I ARGUE ABOUT THE INFINITUDE OF PRIMES, DON'T TELL ME ABOUT THE SUCCESSES OF SOME ECONOMIC THEORY, BECAUSE IT'S NOT FUCKING RELEVANT!
Egnorance: Aquinas' First Way -- the First Way has nothing-- n-o-t-h-i-n-g-- to do with the Big Bang.
"Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another..."
Again we must be cautious. Let's rephrase it in modern terms: "whatever is changing is being changed by something else." But even more caution is warranted. What he means by "another" is not "something else" per se, but rather something that already exists. This could be a part of the thing that is changing, even an internal part. You may protest that you move yourself when you walk. That you are not moved by "another" at all. But think about what is being changed, here. Your upper body is being moved by your legs. Your upper body is not moving itself. It is being moved by something else. Something else that exists. If your legs didn't exist, they couldn't very well move your upper body.
IF something moved, THEN something else had to exist to move it. Even if that something else is only a different part of the thing being moved.
If there is an object A comprised of two parts B and C, the claim is B can change C and C can change B, but B can not change B, and C cannot change C.
Go on, ask me why B can't change B.
The idea is if we know B changed, (because SOMETHING changed according to premise 1), then something else like C must have moved it, because B cannot change B.
Your logic is pretty, but you're assuming that the beginning of the universe obeys laws of nature and logic, and you simply do not have a good reason to believe that. Or do you?
See, what you're doing here is opening up a skeptical line of argument that does not address any premises of the argument. It's hyperskeptical to reject logic when it comes to god arguments, but accept logic for everything else in the world. For you to dismiss logic because the origin of the universe is spooky makes you ILLOGICAL, atheist, while the theist is on the side of logic. What fucking bizarro world is this? Atheists are supposed to be the logical ones, and theists are the dumb faithful bible thumpers. But here you're so faithful to your fucking atheism that you'll throw out logic.
AND THE PRIME MOVER ARGUMENT IS NOT ABOUT THE ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE! FUCK! IT'S ABOUT THE ORIGIN OF CHANGE, TODAY, NOW, ANY TIME THERE IS A CHANGE THIS ARGUMENT APPLIES! 2016! CURRENT YEAR! NO TALK OF BIG BANG! GODDAMN!
For you to dismiss logic because the origin of the universe is spooky makes you ILLOGICAL, atheist, while the theist is on the side of logic.
You just here said exactly what I was pointing out. You think that the beginning of the universe obeys logic and laws of nature, yet have no reason to do so.
You have no reason to think the beginning of the universe violates logic. You are being illogical, atheist, and you're making the opposition look more logical than you because they're not dismissing logic for no good reason.
BUT FUCK THE BEGINNING OF THE UNIVERSE! THE UNMOVED MOVER ARGUMENT APPLIES TO ALL CHANGE RIGHT NOW! TODAY! RIGHT NOW! AS I TOLD YOU ALREADY! GODDAMN!
You have no reason to think the beginning of the universe violates logic.
You have no reason to think that logic and natural law exist before the beginning of the universe. Sorry, but the onus is on you there.
You are being illogical, atheist, and you're making the opposition look more logical than you because they're not dismissing logic for no good reason.
Can the laws of nature and logic create a universe? Is there any mechanism there to do so? Do you know for a fact that there is one, and how it worked?
AS LOGIC APPLIES TO EVERYTHING WE'VE EVER FUCKING SEEN, LOGIC IS MORE FUCKING CERTAIN THAN EVOLUTION AND THE BIG BANG AND ALL FUCKING SCIENCE THAT RELIES ON AND PRESUMES LOGIC! THE ONUS IS ON YOU TO JUSTIFY THROWING OUT OUR STRONGEST AND MOST CERTAIN FORM OF KNOWLEDGE! FUCK!
Can the laws of nature and logic create a universe? Is there any mechanism there to do so? Do you know for a fact that there is one, and how it worked?
NONE OF THIS PICKS A PREMISE TO REJECT! YOU ARE NO LONGER TALKING ABOUT THE UNMOVED MOVER ARGUMENT AT ALL! GODDAMN!
Can the laws of nature and logic create a universe?
LAWS AND LOGIC ARE ABSTRACT! ONLY CONCRETE OBJECTS ARE CAUSAL! THAT'S WHY GOD IS A CONCRETE OBJECT, AND LAWS CANNOT CREATE OR CAUSE!
Is there any mechanism there to do so?
MECHANISM IS TALK OF EFFICIENT CAUSALITY! EFFICIENT CAUSALITY DEALS IN ACTUALITY AND POTENTIALITY! THE CAUSAL "MECHANISM" IS PURE ACTUALITY!
Do you know for a fact that there is one,
YES!
and how it worked?
HOW SOMETHING WORKS IS A DIFFERENT TOPIC THAN ESTABLISHING THE EXISTENCE OF SOMETHING! WE CAN BE CERTAIN PURE ACTUALITY EXISTS WITHOUT KNOWING HOW IT WORKS! THERE'S LOTS OF SHIT THAT WE KNOW EXISTS BUT WE DON'T KNOW HOW IT WORKS!
No, I'm saying that the assertions you, and everyone else make about it are unsubstantiated. To think that the logical and natural laws of our universe also created our universe is quite a bit of hubris on your part.
This is your level. When you want to reject P1, P2, P3, or P4 this conversation can continue. Otherwise you're being illogical for no good reason.
Look, let's say a donkey, or Krauss, or Crensch's penis created the universe. Wonderful. You've taken god out of the origin of the universe. THAT DOESN'T REFUTE THE UNMOVED MOVER ARGUMENT! IN ORDER TO DO THAT YOU NEED TO REFUTE SOME FUCKING PREMISE!
Dickhole, if a donkey created the universe, (to appease you since you can't fucking get over the beginning of the universe), THE UNMOVED MOVER ARGUMENT IS STILL SOUND! THERE MUST BE AN UNMOVED MOVER RESPONSIBLE FOR CHANGE TODAY! NOW! NOT BILLIONS OF YEARS AGO! NOW! WHY CAN'T YOU GRASP THAT?! FUCK!
Oh, I only got to the second premise before you failed. Did you want a freebie for the next ones?
I'll give you a freebie if you want.
Also, if the unmoved mover argument isn't refuted by the fact that it doesn't necessarily hold at the beginning of the universe, then why do you have such a hardon for Krauss?
I didn't fail. You failed. You rejected logic. Logic necessarily applies at the origin of the universe. You're stupid and think it doesn't. You can't grasp that the argument holds today, right now. You have a hard on for Krauss, because you think 2 equals 0. You make atheism look idiotic. Deny logic and cry about the origin of the universe harder, faggot.
I didn't fail at the second premise. You went off the rails at the second premise, stopped talking about the argument completely, denied logic, and failed to grasp that a proper analysis of the unmoved mover argument needn't even mention the origin of the universe, as it's fucking irrelevant.
When will you get it through your stupid head that to refute an argument you have to address its premises, not go off on a tangent completely unrelated. Aquinas is old. They didn't know about spacetime. Why trust logic? What if we're in the Matrix right now? Harry Potter roofles.
No you fucking idiot. The premises are reasonable. This is not fiction. You are being illogical and a faithful atheist. You would rather fucking deny logic than admit those reasonable premises are reasonable. Fuck you, idiot Crensch. You have no idea how to properly respond to argument. You don't know logic. And much of the time you don't even comprehend what I tell you. That's why I have to tell you that logic and laws are abstract not concrete multiple times. That's why I have to tell you the argument needn't be about the origin of the universe multiple times. That's why I have to tell you to properly address the argument address the premises multiple times. That's why I have to tell you that B cannot change B multiple times. That's why I have to explain to you what question-begging is and how this is not that, multiple times. Because you're terrible at this philosophy thing. You don't know basic logic. You don't know how to respond to argument.
Fuck off now, idiot Crensch. Be an illogical cheerleader atheist rather than clearly explaining what's wrong with P1, P2, P3, or P4.
You asserted logic where you have no reason to do so. If space-time started at the big bang, there's no reason to think the laws of nature or logic hold before that, either. Yet you insert it there as if you know something, which causes you to fail.
You have the Krauss hardon. You insist his nonsense book makes sense. And you are rejecting logic because of the origin of the universe.
Infinite primes? Fuck that the origin of the universe is spooky.
Evolution? Fuck that the origin of the universe is spooky.
I think therefore I am? Fuck that the origin of the universe is spooky.
Trump for president? Fuck that the origin of the universe is spooky. Lalalala reject reject reject you can never prove anything to me because I shut my eyes and stick my fingers in my ears! You can't convince me of anything because maybe logic don't real at the origin of the universe, which I base on nothing!
Seriously, I listen to what he says. You find cocks to ride that attack him for not asking "why is the universe here?". How am I supposed to take you seriously after that?
Seriously, I listen to what he says. You find cocks to ride that attack him for not asking "why is the universe here?". How am I supposed to take you seriously after that?
YOU HAVE NO ONE ELSE SUPPORTING YOUR POSITION! I HAVE MULTIPLE EXPERTS SUPPORTING MINE! AND IT'S NOT EVEN ABOUT THE EXPERTS! TWO DOESN'T EQUAL ZERO, IDIOT! AND THE LOGICAL PROOF IS LOGICAL, IDIOT! AN EXPERT ISN'T NEEDED TO POINT OUT THAT 2 IS NOT 0, AND THAT DENYING LOGIC IS ILLOGICAL! FUCK YOU!
Your denial is just like when Wendy Wright told Dawkins that she just didn't think that the evidence of evolution was there. Sure, she could look at all the fossils, but still creationism teehee because she's brainwashed. And you can see a fucking logical proof, but still logic don't real at the origin of the universe, because you're a brainwashed faithful atheist.
YOU HAVE NO ONE ELSE SUPPORTING YOUR POSITION! I HAVE MULTIPLE EXPERTS SUPPORTING MINE!
No, you had that one guy, what was his name? He was admonishing Krauss for not answering questions no scientist has any business attempting to answer. It was embarrassing.
And look at you talking about authorities and character flaws RATHER THAN ADDRESSING THE PREMISES OF THE FUCKING ARGUMENT!
If you reject P2, then you are saying that something can move itself. Or should I reject the negation of P2 also because logic don't real? P2 is neither true nor false because logic don't real teehee! We can't know anything ever!
And look at you talking about authorities and character flaws RATHER THAN ADDRESSING THE PREMISES OF THE FUCKING ARGUMENT!
You're the one that got off topic. You could have moved the conversation forward by saying that you realize your logic and laws of nature don't hold before the big bang, but you didn't.
Oh, btw, I read Sagan, Hawking, Panek, Feynman, Asimov, and Greene. They all kinda agree. Are they all idiots, in your book?
Right, I'm the bad guy because I go to physicists to have my physics questions answered instead of philosophers.
For all your talk about how great you are with logic, you seem to think the term "natural philosophers" survived after the advent of science, and think those, and current "philosophers" superior to physicists where physics and the nature of reality is concerned.
I'm pretty sure the reason for this is if you accepted modern physics, your logic for your god breaks down. That's a pretty sad reason to cling to such a thing.
Right, I'm the bad guy because I go to physicists to have my physics questions answered instead of philosophers.
This is metaphysics, philosophy of religion, theology, philosophy of physics, and philosophy of logic.
For all your talk about how great you are with logic, you seem to think the term "natural philosophers" survived after the advent of science,
This is a myth. It never happened.
and think those, and current "philosophers" superior to physicists where physics and the nature of reality is concerned.
Philosophers of physics often are superior to physicists about things. And way to fucking ignore the physicists who disagreed with you, so you had to say they're not real physicists.
I'm pretty sure the reason for this is if you accepted modern physics, your logic for your god breaks down. That's a pretty sad reason to cling to such a thing.
I am better at physics than you. There is nothing you know about physics that I don't. I am better at math than you. I am better at philosophy than you. I am better at logic than you. I am intellectually superior to you. There is nothing about this topic related to physics or god that you know and I don't. My knowledge is far more comprehensive than yours. You are clinging to antitheism because you were brainwashed by a political movement. Logic is on my side. All the quantum weirdness you can imagine is fucking irrelevant here. If we stop talking about God and start talking about quantum physics, I will school you as hard as I schooled you on logic. There's nothing you know that I don't, idiot uneducated Crensch. You are intellectually inferior to me.
You are clinging to antitheism because you were brainwashed by a political movement.
You mean I don't accept stupid ideas that were hammered into me by the majority social narrative up 'till about 5 years ago? That I don't accept silly, fantastical stories about theistic gods that have books that show them to be both internally and externally inconsistent?
Oh, but somehow I'm supposed to believe in that, but also believe you when you want to force your logic into shit before time even started.
view the rest of the comments →
Crensch ago
Some are already getting fired - others are getting Smug Pepes mailed to them or dropped on their doorstep with Arkanicide victim names on them.
No fucks given here. I hope they drink ammonia.
Antiracist2 ago
You're an idiot with no objection to Aquinas.
@eagleshigh @bilbo_swaggins @cancel-cat-facts
Crensch ago
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/hallq/2012/10/did-aquinas-arguments-just-suck/
Get on my level.
antiracist3 ago
Link HuffPo next time, idiot.
@eagleshigh @bilbo_swaggins @watitdew @stretched_girl
PICK A PREMISE TO SAY IS WRONG IDIOT CRENSCH!
Crensch ago
http://patas.co/articles/opinion/refuting-the-five-ways-of-aquinas/
Even HuffPo could beat your AIG crap. Get on my level.
antiracist3 ago
Link HuffPo next time, idiot.
@eagleshigh @bilbo_swaggins @watitdew @stretched_girl
PICK A PREMISE TO SAY IS WRONG IDIOT CRENSCH!
Look, I'll prove that the Holocaust happened using Crensch's stupid standard of rationality.
http://huffpost.com/us/news/holocaust-denial
You are so stupid, Crensch.
PICK A FUCKING PREMISE TO SAY IS WRONG! THAT'S HOW YOU ADDRESS AN ARGUMENT! NOT WITH SHITTY ARTICLES FROM NON-EXPERTS!
You are so stupid, Crensch.
Crensch ago
I did that three times in the other thread and you went mental, just like you're doing now.
You wanted me to dig up your stupid aquinas proof before, and I did, your turn, bitch.
antiracist3 ago
No dickhole. We're starting fresh.
Here are the fucking premises. Pick which you want to call false AND WHY and I'll defend it.
P1: Change exists
P2: If some thing changes, then that thing is changed by another.
P3: If a thing is changed by another, then either there is an infinite regress of changed changers or there is an unchanged changer.
P4: An infinite regress of changed changers is impossible.
You can tell me P1 is false because change doesn't exist. Do you want to do that?
You can tell me that P2 is false because something changes itself. Do you want to do that?
You can say P3 is false because there are more options than an infinite or finite sequence of changers.
You can say P4 is false because an infinite sequence of changers is possible.
WHAT STRATEGY DO YOU WANT TO USE?! LINKING SHITTY ARTICLES AND CALLING AQUINAS OLD IS NOT A VALID RESPONSE!
Okay. What you linked me was retarded.
It's clear the author, like you, knows nothing of what he's talking about.
NO IT DIDN'T! FOR THAT TO HAPPEN THE CONCLUSION OF THE UNMOVED MOVER WOULD HAVE TO BE STATED IN THE PREMISES AND IT'S NOT!
WE DON'T NEED TO ANSWER DIFFERENT QUESTIONS! THAT'S NOT HOW AN ARGUMENT IS SHOWN TO BE UNSOUND!
IF I PROVE THERE ARE INFINITE PRIMES, DON'T ASK ME HOW MANY PRIMES ARE BENEATH 1,000,000 AND EXPECT THAT INABILITY TO ANSWER THAT NEW QUESTION REFUTES THE PROOF OF THE INFINITUDE OF PRIMES!
WHAT THE FUCK?! GOD DOESN'T MOVE! HE'S THE UNMOVED MOVER!
WHAT THE FUCK?! WE'RE DOING METAPHYSICS, NOT PHYSICS! YOUR ENERGY TERM DOES NOT HAVE MORE CLOUT THAN THE ACTUALITY TERM! GOD IS THE SOURCE OF ENERGY! THIS SAME STUPID QUESTION CAN BE ASKED OF MATTER AND ENERGY! WHERE DOES ENERGY GET ITS ENERGY FROM ROOFLES?!?!?!
GOD DOESN'T MOVE! THE FUCKING POINT OF THE ARGUMENT IS THAT HE DOESN'T MOVE!
FUCKING FINE AND IRRELEVANT! THAT AN IMPERSONAL FORCE IS THE UNMOVED MOVER DOESN'T REFUTE THE ARGUMENT FOR THE EXISTENCE OF THE UNMOVED MOVER! FUCK! TO ESTABLISH THAT THE UNMOVED MOVER IS A PERSONAL FORCE IS THE TOPIC OF A DIFFERENT ARGUMENT! FUCK!
NO ONE GIVES A SHIT! THIS IS COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT! IF I ARGUE ABOUT THE INFINITUDE OF PRIMES, DON'T TELL ME ABOUT THE SUCCESSES OF SOME ECONOMIC THEORY, BECAUSE IT'S NOT FUCKING RELEVANT!
Egnorance: Aquinas' First Way -- the First Way has nothing-- n-o-t-h-i-n-g-- to do with the Big Bang.
https://voat.co/v/Theology/1258362
@eagleshigh @bilbo_swaggins @watitdew @stretched_girl
@SarMegahhikkitha
Crensch ago
OK, we'll start slow. Prove this:
I don't buy it.
antiracist3 ago
"Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another..." Again we must be cautious. Let's rephrase it in modern terms: "whatever is changing is being changed by something else." But even more caution is warranted. What he means by "another" is not "something else" per se, but rather something that already exists. This could be a part of the thing that is changing, even an internal part. You may protest that you move yourself when you walk. That you are not moved by "another" at all. But think about what is being changed, here. Your upper body is being moved by your legs. Your upper body is not moving itself. It is being moved by something else. Something else that exists. If your legs didn't exist, they couldn't very well move your upper body.
Crensch ago
Rejected.
antiracist3 ago
Wonderfully articulate.
Crensch ago
Prove that something else has to exist. You're dropping the ball here and you can't even see it.
antiracist3 ago
IF something moved, THEN something else had to exist to move it. Even if that something else is only a different part of the thing being moved.
If there is an object A comprised of two parts B and C, the claim is B can change C and C can change B, but B can not change B, and C cannot change C.
Go on, ask me why B can't change B.
The idea is if we know B changed, (because SOMETHING changed according to premise 1), then something else like C must have moved it, because B cannot change B.
Go on, ask me why B can't change B.
Crensch ago
No, it didn't.
antiracist3 ago
Then how did it move? It moved itself?
Go on, ask me why B cannot change B.
Crensch ago
Your logic is pretty, but you're assuming that the beginning of the universe obeys laws of nature and logic, and you simply do not have a good reason to believe that. Or do you?
Antiracist4 ago
See, what you're doing here is opening up a skeptical line of argument that does not address any premises of the argument. It's hyperskeptical to reject logic when it comes to god arguments, but accept logic for everything else in the world. For you to dismiss logic because the origin of the universe is spooky makes you ILLOGICAL, atheist, while the theist is on the side of logic. What fucking bizarro world is this? Atheists are supposed to be the logical ones, and theists are the dumb faithful bible thumpers. But here you're so faithful to your fucking atheism that you'll throw out logic.
AND THE PRIME MOVER ARGUMENT IS NOT ABOUT THE ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE! FUCK! IT'S ABOUT THE ORIGIN OF CHANGE, TODAY, NOW, ANY TIME THERE IS A CHANGE THIS ARGUMENT APPLIES! 2016! CURRENT YEAR! NO TALK OF BIG BANG! GODDAMN!
@eagleshigh @stretched_girl @bilbo_swaggins
@SarMegahhikkitha
Crensch ago
Pretty sure you used the exact wording previously to argue for your stupid idea.
Ok, so not the origin of the universe, so you're arguing for what, now?
Antiracist4 ago
NOPE!
THAT ALL CHANGE STARTS WITH AN INITIAL CHANGER THAT IS NOT CHANGED! FUCK!
WHICH ONE?!
POINT OUT THE HIDDEN ASSUMPTIONS!
YOU DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO BACK YOUR BASELESS CLAIM OF HIDDEN ASSUMPTIONS!
Crensch ago
You just here said exactly what I was pointing out. You think that the beginning of the universe obeys logic and laws of nature, yet have no reason to do so.
Antiracist4 ago
You have no reason to think the beginning of the universe violates logic. You are being illogical, atheist, and you're making the opposition look more logical than you because they're not dismissing logic for no good reason.
BUT FUCK THE BEGINNING OF THE UNIVERSE! THE UNMOVED MOVER ARGUMENT APPLIES TO ALL CHANGE RIGHT NOW! TODAY! RIGHT NOW! AS I TOLD YOU ALREADY! GODDAMN!
Crensch ago
You have no reason to think that logic and natural law exist before the beginning of the universe. Sorry, but the onus is on you there.
Can the laws of nature and logic create a universe? Is there any mechanism there to do so? Do you know for a fact that there is one, and how it worked?
Antiracist4 ago
AS LOGIC APPLIES TO EVERYTHING WE'VE EVER FUCKING SEEN, LOGIC IS MORE FUCKING CERTAIN THAN EVOLUTION AND THE BIG BANG AND ALL FUCKING SCIENCE THAT RELIES ON AND PRESUMES LOGIC! THE ONUS IS ON YOU TO JUSTIFY THROWING OUT OUR STRONGEST AND MOST CERTAIN FORM OF KNOWLEDGE! FUCK!
NONE OF THIS PICKS A PREMISE TO REJECT! YOU ARE NO LONGER TALKING ABOUT THE UNMOVED MOVER ARGUMENT AT ALL! GODDAMN!
LAWS AND LOGIC ARE ABSTRACT! ONLY CONCRETE OBJECTS ARE CAUSAL! THAT'S WHY GOD IS A CONCRETE OBJECT, AND LAWS CANNOT CREATE OR CAUSE!
MECHANISM IS TALK OF EFFICIENT CAUSALITY! EFFICIENT CAUSALITY DEALS IN ACTUALITY AND POTENTIALITY! THE CAUSAL "MECHANISM" IS PURE ACTUALITY!
YES!
HOW SOMETHING WORKS IS A DIFFERENT TOPIC THAN ESTABLISHING THE EXISTENCE OF SOMETHING! WE CAN BE CERTAIN PURE ACTUALITY EXISTS WITHOUT KNOWING HOW IT WORKS! THERE'S LOTS OF SHIT THAT WE KNOW EXISTS BUT WE DON'T KNOW HOW IT WORKS!
Crensch ago
Have you seen the beginning of a universe?
How about you go take a walk or something - splash some water on your face. I'd mention snickers, but I'm afraid this is the real you.
Antiracist4 ago
The unmoved mover argument, for the gagillionth time, doesn't have to be about the beginning of the universe! It's about change that exists now!
Crensch ago
But it fails at the beginning of the universe.
Antiracist4 ago
No, you're hoping it does so you don't have to go to church.
Crensch ago
No, I'm saying that the assertions you, and everyone else make about it are unsubstantiated. To think that the logical and natural laws of our universe also created our universe is quite a bit of hubris on your part.
Antiracist4 ago
Logically proven.
I just fucking explained to you that logic and laws are abstract and cannot cause, that is why concrete god is required! Reading comprehension.
Crensch ago
Rejected.
No god is required. If you can make up stories, so can I.
Antiracist4 ago
This is your level. When you want to reject P1, P2, P3, or P4 this conversation can continue. Otherwise you're being illogical for no good reason.
Look, let's say a donkey, or Krauss, or Crensch's penis created the universe. Wonderful. You've taken god out of the origin of the universe. THAT DOESN'T REFUTE THE UNMOVED MOVER ARGUMENT! IN ORDER TO DO THAT YOU NEED TO REFUTE SOME FUCKING PREMISE!
Dickhole, if a donkey created the universe, (to appease you since you can't fucking get over the beginning of the universe), THE UNMOVED MOVER ARGUMENT IS STILL SOUND! THERE MUST BE AN UNMOVED MOVER RESPONSIBLE FOR CHANGE TODAY! NOW! NOT BILLIONS OF YEARS AGO! NOW! WHY CAN'T YOU GRASP THAT?! FUCK!
Crensch ago
Oh, I only got to the second premise before you failed. Did you want a freebie for the next ones?
I'll give you a freebie if you want.
Also, if the unmoved mover argument isn't refuted by the fact that it doesn't necessarily hold at the beginning of the universe, then why do you have such a hardon for Krauss?
Antiracist5 ago
I didn't fail. You failed. You rejected logic. Logic necessarily applies at the origin of the universe. You're stupid and think it doesn't. You can't grasp that the argument holds today, right now. You have a hard on for Krauss, because you think 2 equals 0. You make atheism look idiotic. Deny logic and cry about the origin of the universe harder, faggot.
I didn't fail at the second premise. You went off the rails at the second premise, stopped talking about the argument completely, denied logic, and failed to grasp that a proper analysis of the unmoved mover argument needn't even mention the origin of the universe, as it's fucking irrelevant.
When will you get it through your stupid head that to refute an argument you have to address its premises, not go off on a tangent completely unrelated. Aquinas is old. They didn't know about spacetime. Why trust logic? What if we're in the Matrix right now? Harry Potter roofles.
No you fucking idiot. The premises are reasonable. This is not fiction. You are being illogical and a faithful atheist. You would rather fucking deny logic than admit those reasonable premises are reasonable. Fuck you, idiot Crensch. You have no idea how to properly respond to argument. You don't know logic. And much of the time you don't even comprehend what I tell you. That's why I have to tell you that logic and laws are abstract not concrete multiple times. That's why I have to tell you the argument needn't be about the origin of the universe multiple times. That's why I have to tell you to properly address the argument address the premises multiple times. That's why I have to tell you that B cannot change B multiple times. That's why I have to explain to you what question-begging is and how this is not that, multiple times. Because you're terrible at this philosophy thing. You don't know basic logic. You don't know how to respond to argument.
Fuck off now, idiot Crensch. Be an illogical cheerleader atheist rather than clearly explaining what's wrong with P1, P2, P3, or P4.
Fuck you, Crensch.
@eagleshigh @watitdew @bojangles @bilbo_swaggins @SarMegahhikkitha @stretched_girl
Crensch ago
You asserted logic where you have no reason to do so. If space-time started at the big bang, there's no reason to think the laws of nature or logic hold before that, either. Yet you insert it there as if you know something, which causes you to fail.
Antiracist5 ago
/atheism
Crensch ago
You're the one with the Krauss hardon. Also with the premise that you won't concede doesn't hold before the big bang. You lose, nigger.
Antiracist5 ago
You have the Krauss hardon. You insist his nonsense book makes sense. And you are rejecting logic because of the origin of the universe.
Infinite primes? Fuck that the origin of the universe is spooky.
Evolution? Fuck that the origin of the universe is spooky.
I think therefore I am? Fuck that the origin of the universe is spooky.
Trump for president? Fuck that the origin of the universe is spooky. Lalalala reject reject reject you can never prove anything to me because I shut my eyes and stick my fingers in my ears! You can't convince me of anything because maybe logic don't real at the origin of the universe, which I base on nothing!
Fuck you. Idiot.
@eagleshigh @bojangles @stretched_girl
Crensch ago
Seriously, I listen to what he says. You find cocks to ride that attack him for not asking "why is the universe here?". How am I supposed to take you seriously after that?
Antiracist5 ago
YOU HAVE NO ONE ELSE SUPPORTING YOUR POSITION! I HAVE MULTIPLE EXPERTS SUPPORTING MINE! AND IT'S NOT EVEN ABOUT THE EXPERTS! TWO DOESN'T EQUAL ZERO, IDIOT! AND THE LOGICAL PROOF IS LOGICAL, IDIOT! AN EXPERT ISN'T NEEDED TO POINT OUT THAT 2 IS NOT 0, AND THAT DENYING LOGIC IS ILLOGICAL! FUCK YOU!
Your denial is just like when Wendy Wright told Dawkins that she just didn't think that the evidence of evolution was there. Sure, she could look at all the fossils, but still creationism teehee because she's brainwashed. And you can see a fucking logical proof, but still logic don't real at the origin of the universe, because you're a brainwashed faithful atheist.
Crensch ago
No, you had that one guy, what was his name? He was admonishing Krauss for not answering questions no scientist has any business attempting to answer. It was embarrassing.
Antiracist5 ago
And look at you talking about authorities and character flaws RATHER THAN ADDRESSING THE PREMISES OF THE FUCKING ARGUMENT!
If you reject P2, then you are saying that something can move itself. Or should I reject the negation of P2 also because logic don't real? P2 is neither true nor false because logic don't real teehee! We can't know anything ever!
Crensch ago
You're the one that got off topic. You could have moved the conversation forward by saying that you realize your logic and laws of nature don't hold before the big bang, but you didn't.
Oh, btw, I read Sagan, Hawking, Panek, Feynman, Asimov, and Greene. They all kinda agree. Are they all idiots, in your book?
Antiracist5 ago
Suck my dick, idiot Crensch. I'm done with you. Go suck science dick cheerleader bitch idiot.
Crensch ago
Right, I'm the bad guy because I go to physicists to have my physics questions answered instead of philosophers.
For all your talk about how great you are with logic, you seem to think the term "natural philosophers" survived after the advent of science, and think those, and current "philosophers" superior to physicists where physics and the nature of reality is concerned.
I'm pretty sure the reason for this is if you accepted modern physics, your logic for your god breaks down. That's a pretty sad reason to cling to such a thing.
Antiracist5 ago
This is metaphysics, philosophy of religion, theology, philosophy of physics, and philosophy of logic.
This is a myth. It never happened.
Philosophers of physics often are superior to physicists about things. And way to fucking ignore the physicists who disagreed with you, so you had to say they're not real physicists.
I am better at physics than you. There is nothing you know about physics that I don't. I am better at math than you. I am better at philosophy than you. I am better at logic than you. I am intellectually superior to you. There is nothing about this topic related to physics or god that you know and I don't. My knowledge is far more comprehensive than yours. You are clinging to antitheism because you were brainwashed by a political movement. Logic is on my side. All the quantum weirdness you can imagine is fucking irrelevant here. If we stop talking about God and start talking about quantum physics, I will school you as hard as I schooled you on logic. There's nothing you know that I don't, idiot uneducated Crensch. You are intellectually inferior to me.
Crensch ago
You mean I don't accept stupid ideas that were hammered into me by the majority social narrative up 'till about 5 years ago? That I don't accept silly, fantastical stories about theistic gods that have books that show them to be both internally and externally inconsistent?
Oh, but somehow I'm supposed to believe in that, but also believe you when you want to force your logic into shit before time even started.