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!
Because, yea even because they despised My laws [Logic], and because their soul abhorred My decrees, therefore they shall pay for their iniquity.
For it was of ＹＨＶＨ to harden their hearts, that they should come against Yisrael in war, that he might destroy them utterly, that there might be for them no plea for mercy.
Go in unto Pharaoh [the evil inclination]; for I have hardened his heart, and the heart of his servants [of darkness].
"And a new king arose over Egypt…" [Ex. 1:8] This refers to the evil inclination, who is the "old and foolish king". [Ecc. 4:13; Kohelet Rabba 4:9]
Why do you not understand what I am saying? It is because you are unable to accept My message. You belong to your father, the Opposer, and you want to carry out his desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, refusing to uphold the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, because he is a liar and the father of lies.
Sar is smarter than you. You and @bilbo_swaggins are anti-intellectual. I've disagreed with Sar before. I replied to a friend without yelling, therefore logic don't real. Keep believing you can find something in my behavior to negate logical proof. Fucking idiot.
Keep believing you can find something in my behavior to negate logical proof.
I never said that - you just need to put words in my mouth to create a nice strawman to knock down, because I'm done with the kid gloves, and you can't handle it.
Why would someone who doesn't understand the Bible elevate himself over someone who tries to? Can you imagine a fundie claiming to be smarter than every astrophysicist, "therefore anyone spouting physics is a dummy"? That's how you sound to other people. It's OK to say "I don't know anything about that" sometimes; even eagleshigh is able to overcome his Narcissistic Personality Disorder long enough to do that.
Why would someone who doesn't understand the Bible elevate himself over someone who tries to?
I understand it just fine.
Can you imagine a fundie claiming to be smarter than every astrophysicist, "therefore anyone spouting physics is a dummy"?
The difference is that I can read the book that is supposed to be divinely inspired by your god, and it's garbage. You actually have to study stuff to be an astrophysicist, and claiming there's no difference just shows how unqualified you are to comment.
That's how you sound to other people.
No, it's not. That's how I sound to indoctrinated fools that learn things only to confirm their beliefs, and leave out the parts that show them to be untenable.
It's OK to say "I don't know anything about that" sometimes; even eagleshigh is able to overcome his Narcissistic Personality Disorder long enough to do that.
I've read the fucking book. There's nothing more to know about it. There is no science or discovery or questions needing to be asked to learn more about it. It's there. I can pick one up in the drawer of a fucking hotel room.
You can't even understand basic logic concepts that are slowly and patiently explained to you a million times, like what the fuck begging the question means.
You used to insist Aquinas is old teehee not a physicist.
Then you used to insist the argument was question-begging.
Now you insist that logic doesn't apply to the origin of the universe. How long before you abandon this ridiculously retarded objection just like you abandoned your previous retarded objections that you were so sure of?
Then you used to insist the argument was question-begging.
It still is. You're leaving room for your prime mover because you know once you take the logical, realistic approach of conceding that your laws do not necessarily hold before the universe began, you won't have room to stuff him back in.
The only one using the retarded phrases "before the universe began" and "before the big bang" is you, retard.
conceding that your laws do not necessarily hold before the universe began
The laws always hold. That's what necessarily means, you fucking idiot.
@eagleshigh, @SarMegahhikkitha, can you believe this stupid motherfucker STILL doesn't know what question-begging means?
You know, stupid dickhole, you could also attempt to say the unmoved mover is an impersonal force, but you're too chicken shit to attempt any other defenses of your atheism other than denying logic.
@eagleshigh, anything in your logic book about time?
Crensch, you believe in physical laws, right now even if they didn't apply at the start of the universe. So if I made some physical claim about the moon or something right now it would be stupid to try to refute that claim by emphatically stating that those physical laws didn't apply at the start of the universe.
Likewise, if an argument is given for god existing right now it would be stupid to try to refute that claim by emphatically stating that logic didn't apply at the start of the universe.
Crensch, you believe in physical laws, right now even if they didn't apply at the start of the universe. So if I made some physical claim about the moon or something right now it would be stupid to try to refute that claim by emphatically stating that those physical laws didn't apply at the start of the universe.
I fully agree with that. I've asked you to caveat your words, and you went mental. You're done dude. It takes you 50+ posts to caveat a post.
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
SarMegahhikkitha ago
Antiracist5 ago
It is a neurological matter. In 6 months @Crensch will be theist. He can't process it right now because of his emotional investment in hating theists.
His brain needs to rewire. The indisputable logic will rewire his brain as he thinks about it over the next months.
Crensch ago
I find that you responding to bible passages without going apeshit hilarious. Talk about having a double standard where logic is concerned.
Antiracist5 ago
Sar is smarter than you. You and @bilbo_swaggins are anti-intellectual. I've disagreed with Sar before. I replied to a friend without yelling, therefore logic don't real. Keep believing you can find something in my behavior to negate logical proof. Fucking idiot.
@SarMegahhikkitha
Crensch ago
The guy quotes the bible. No, he's not.
I never said that - you just need to put words in my mouth to create a nice strawman to knock down, because I'm done with the kid gloves, and you can't handle it.
SarMegahhikkitha ago
Why would someone who doesn't understand the Bible elevate himself over someone who tries to? Can you imagine a fundie claiming to be smarter than every astrophysicist, "therefore anyone spouting physics is a dummy"? That's how you sound to other people. It's OK to say "I don't know anything about that" sometimes; even eagleshigh is able to overcome his Narcissistic Personality Disorder long enough to do that.
Crensch ago
I understand it just fine.
The difference is that I can read the book that is supposed to be divinely inspired by your god, and it's garbage. You actually have to study stuff to be an astrophysicist, and claiming there's no difference just shows how unqualified you are to comment.
No, it's not. That's how I sound to indoctrinated fools that learn things only to confirm their beliefs, and leave out the parts that show them to be untenable.
I've read the fucking book. There's nothing more to know about it. There is no science or discovery or questions needing to be asked to learn more about it. It's there. I can pick one up in the drawer of a fucking hotel room.
Antiracist6 ago
You can't even understand basic logic concepts that are slowly and patiently explained to you a million times, like what the fuck begging the question means.
@SarMegahhikkitha
Crensch ago
You talk about logic then defend the bible? My sides.
Antiracist6 ago
P1, P2, P3, or P4. Pick, shithead.
Keep denying George Ellis, David Albert, and Sean Carroll are physicists.
Do you see that 3 names are more than 1? Or would Krauss have you believe 1>3 as he has you sucking his penis and believing that 2=0 and 0+0=5?
@SarMegahhikkitha
Crensch ago
Oh, they might have the label, but the questions they're asking are garbage-tier. Kinda like you are with logic, apparently.
Besides: Krauss - 364 Ellis - 86 Carroll - 77 Albert - 0
https://arxiv.org/multi?group=grp_physics&%2Ffind=Search
"Logic" HAHAHAHAHAHHAHA
Antiracist6 ago
Shit, better compare holocaust historians in the same way.
Because how many papers Krauss wrote totes establishes that P1, P2, P3, or P4 are false, and that 2 equals 0, and that physicists aren't physicists.
Idiot.
@SarMegahhikkitha @eagleshigh @bilbo_swaggins @stretched_girl
Crensch ago
Lol, as if they're on the same level at all. It's not illegal anywhere to question physicists. Garbage mind makes garbage arguments.
Antiracist6 ago
2 does not equal 0.
Logic applies.
P1, P2, P3, or P4. Pick which is false, shithead.
@SarMegahhikkitha @eagleshigh @bilbo_swaggins @stretched_girl
Crensch ago
Apparently you can assert that it applies before time. /golfclap
Fail.
Antiracist7 ago
P1, P2, P3, or P4. Pick which is false, illogical shithead.
@SarMegahhikkitha @eagleshigh @bilbo_swaggins @stretched_girl
Crensch ago
Your frame is broken. Has been this whole time. You assert that P2 applies before time existed. Until that changes, no reason to continue.
Antiracist10 ago
You used to insist Aquinas is old teehee not a physicist.
Then you used to insist the argument was question-begging.
Now you insist that logic doesn't apply to the origin of the universe. How long before you abandon this ridiculously retarded objection just like you abandoned your previous retarded objections that you were so sure of?
@eagleshigh @bilbo_swaggins @watitdew @stretched_girl
@SarMegahhikkitha
Crensch ago
It still is. You're leaving room for your prime mover because you know once you take the logical, realistic approach of conceding that your laws do not necessarily hold before the universe began, you won't have room to stuff him back in.
JesusOfNazareth61 ago
The only one using the retarded phrases "before the universe began" and "before the big bang" is you, retard.
The laws always hold. That's what necessarily means, you fucking idiot.
@eagleshigh, @SarMegahhikkitha, can you believe this stupid motherfucker STILL doesn't know what question-begging means?
You know, stupid dickhole, you could also attempt to say the unmoved mover is an impersonal force, but you're too chicken shit to attempt any other defenses of your atheism other than denying logic.
Idiot.
Crensch ago
Yeah, I'm using that because you want to use your logic there, which would require time to actually exist then. You're welcome.
JesusOfNazareth61 ago
You're an idiot. You're welcome. Deny logic harder, stupid bitch.
Crensch ago
Suggesting your logic works without time? Kek.
JesusOfNazareth61 ago
WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?!
@eagleshigh, anything in your logic book about time?
Crensch, you believe in physical laws, right now even if they didn't apply at the start of the universe. So if I made some physical claim about the moon or something right now it would be stupid to try to refute that claim by emphatically stating that those physical laws didn't apply at the start of the universe.
Likewise, if an argument is given for god existing right now it would be stupid to try to refute that claim by emphatically stating that logic didn't apply at the start of the universe.
@SarMegahhikkitha
Crensch ago
I fully agree with that. I've asked you to caveat your words, and you went mental. You're done dude. It takes you 50+ posts to caveat a post.
JesusOfNazareth61 ago
Whatever dawg. God exists right now. P1, P2, P3, or P4, motherfucker.