goodluck with that. most people under our society would take great offense to that

Let them. They are fools, I am tired of them trying to make a fool out of my philosophy and what I believe in, even though it's merely fact and embracing one's carnal desires and self interest.

r/iamverysmart

anyway, religion is based

they are fools

but you dont win over people by telling them that

refute aquinas' arguments then get back to me

@NumberOneSilver

who is aquinas?

ill look into it

it's his five ways

Yeah, I'm looking at them now

I don't see how any of his conclusions actually led to god.

The generic argument behind all five arguments
a. Some dependent beings exist.
b. All dependent beings and their characteristics must have a cause for their
dependent existence.
c. An infinite regress of existentially dependent causes is impossible.
d. Therefore, there must be a first uncaused Cause of the existence of every
dependent being and its characteristics.
e. This independent Being is identical with the I AM of Holy Scripture.

Yes but he's jumping to the conclusion of a false cause.

With god as his assumed product

well no, he's just saying that god is the only explanation because he is the uncaused cause that's necessary

it sounds foolish

i mean it could be things other than god; it doesn't necessarily lead you to islam or christianity

> well no, he's just saying that god is the only explanation because he is the uncaused cause that's necessary
@the_maven But a god isn't necessary, that's my point.

what other explanation is there? an infinite regress?

First of an Uncaused Cause is a paradox, not only that, but science hasn't shown us the beginning of time yet, we only know as of know how our own solar system was created, not necessarily the whole universe...

Where did God come from then?

And why created a world in the first place?

i mean the whole point is that a supernatural being is necessary lol

he didn't come from anywhere, he always was

But it's not

aquinas was taking his product or answer and then scrambling fallacies together to lead to that answer.

He purposely picked point's that science had yet to explain, without realizing that his means to an end didn't necessarily answer the question either.

i mean it did answer the question, just in a supernatural manner

like he was filling the blanks with god

When talking religion there's always a fallacy being committed and not only do they undermine an argument, but they look foolish.

> i mean it did answer the question, just in a supernatural manner
@the_maven Explain to me how it is answered by a supernatural being? How can a paradox answer a question? A paradox like this isn't a form of answer it's a mere fairytale to make you sleep at night. If there is a god, they have abandoned us, so either way, they should too be abandoned.

Why have faith in a god that has abandoned us? no amount of crying out will make this "supreme being" return.

They are wither a spook, a farce, or negligent. And none of these should be praised or celebrated.

i'm an agnostic, relax

all i think is that a supernatural being seems not too far off

and while there's no evidence

there's also no evidence disproving it

> i'm an agnostic, relax
@the_maven I know, I'm just posing questions

@the_maven How do you think things are created? Things = everything, including earthly inventions