I guess what i'm saying is you can find fault with everybody in this eceleb shit

I haven't watched this video

so I'm interested to see about the satanism stuff

But right now the Nicker is one of the few out there with a fairly clean record

Richard spencer is so doomsdayish with his rhetoric

People don't want to listen to blackpillers

Scratch that, people only want to listen to blackpillers if they're already convinced of their positions

Because the frequent posters were rekt

Who here knows about the aristotelian proof for god's existence?

Just wanted to understand it a little better

I'm researching aquinas' arguments because I'm an atheist

and I'm just looking for proof otherwise

What I'm having trouble with here

Is understanding why the "god" in a sustaining series of causes isn't also subject to an infinite regress

Like I understand that there's a difference between linear and hierarchical causes

But what gives the "unmoved mover"different qualities here

or why

So the fact that it exists outside of natural law is the reason it cannot itself be caused?

And just to clear up the jargon there, being outside "natural impulse" means that he is not subject to the law that everything must have a cause?

And i've heard people use the term "good" in theology but I'm not sure what it means in that context

That makes sense

But what I'm not understanding is why this argument is any more convincing than the argument that there is no plane outside of the natural world and there is just an infinite series of causes

Can you enlighten me on why infinity is not possible from that perspective?

Wasn't aquinas willing to concede that it is possible that the linear cause of the universe could be infinite just for the sake of argument?

True

which is why i said he just did it for the sake of his argument

But my answer to your first message

would be that as far as I know mass/energy can't be created or destroyed

right

So if it can naturally exist forever

isn't it plausible that it has always existed forever?

And I apologize that I'm not very well educated in this field

But I promise I'm arguing out of good faith here

So is this infinity in concern to the passing of time or is it everything?

So the idea is that the universe is expanding at an accelerated rate flies in the face of the theory that the big bang is just an infinitely recurring event in the history of the universe, right?

So it would just keep expanding and never retract to the point where there is another big bang

And that would just kind of never end?

So what does that say about the state of the universe before the big bang?

What could have caused the big bang if it's not possible that things retracted to that state

contracted*

To me it doesn't sound very plausible that time existed infinitely before that

You mean like how matter or time is infinitely divisible?

joe fuck off and fire up your charcoal grill

I'm not understanding that

So matter isn't infinitely divisible like time and space is?

So what's the smallest unit in matter?

but all you know is there is a fundamental unit there that cannot itself be divided

Right

It's not really relevant to the topic that started this convo

I think alphonsus left 😦

Originally this was about the aristotelian proof for the existence of god that Aquinas wrote about

And we reached a point where I didn't find it convincing because to me it's also plausible that things can have an infinite series of causes whether it's linear in time or sustaining, hierarchical causes

hierarchical causes refer for example to how my keyboard is able to be 3 feet off of the ground because it's held up by the table which is held up in turn by the floor etc

Right

I'm an atheist with the honest desire to learn otherwise

There's a few arguments that I believe rely on the principle that firstly everything has a cause and that there cannot be an infinite regress of causes

So what I'm having trouble with here is understanding why there can't be an infinite regress of causes

Cause nick is an intellectual beast

I'm a willing convertee, but I'm not going to lie to myself that I'm convinced of a god

Sure, I'll check it out

The problem with the original Summa for me is mainly the old world kind of language

Hard to understand

If someone were to put it in modern terms it would be much easier to get

Okay

Firstly, that does sound appealing and this one page seems to be written in a much more understandable way than much of what I read in the summa

But I fail to understand the analogy of the instrument

peter kreeft?

peter kreeft wrote it before he died?

oh I see

I thought you were referring to the shorter summa

Aquinas wrote a shorter summarized version of his own book?

What a bro

So what does the analogy of the instruments mean?

Why does matter and energy have any distinction between an instrument and a mover?

He'd rather chill with the people who got banned in the banned server

I don't know if it's supposed to be secret or anything

So you know that there's a channel dedicated to shitting on you there?

Fuck this is off topic

I wanted to talk about one thing and it's back to the drama

lol

That's early as fuck yo

Gotta get that 10 hours in

Building houses not made out of mud and rocks? fuckin whity amirite

Jews rock

When you own the misogynists epic style 😎 😎 😎 😎 😎 😎 😎 😎 😎 😎 😎

Women good, men bad

Can you gib pusi now pls?

Holy shit

I've never that sync so well

Like the background dancers come in as the the other instruments do

Nuts

Dude what the fuck is that thing

I need to know

it's a Pibble Slim™

Take the guidopill

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0Y8QvKUTCg

This guy is KILLIN the game right now

This guy is a hero

Big fan of the vape pen