Message from TastefulH8r in Nick Fuentes Server #general

2018-05-12 15:25:40 UTC  

or why

2018-05-12 15:26:25 UTC  

The Angelic Doctor utilized Aristotelian proofs constantly. I'd really recommend getting into the foundations via Metaphysics. But, to get to your point, the primary issue that Aristotle posits depends also on the nature of substances, you know. Like the nature of the natural world via one that isn't natural and is not bound by natural law, but instead is the promulgator of said law.

2018-05-12 15:27:35 UTC  

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

2018-05-12 15:28:38 UTC  

Well, Aristotle posited that as a first mover, in this case, God, He is outside "natural impulse" and is therefore good.

2018-05-12 15:29:22 UTC  

Unless of course even He is a secondary "mover" and someone was even above Him.

2018-05-12 15:29:33 UTC  

The primary aim to grasp is the necessity of the mover itself.

2018-05-12 15:30:05 UTC  

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?

2018-05-12 15:30:55 UTC  

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

2018-05-12 15:30:59 UTC  

grrrr stop having a complex discussion on theology christcucks!!!

2018-05-12 15:31:57 UTC  

He is not subject, per se, as He was the cause itself. However, His acts as first mover is necessity for the secondary cause. In other words, without the movement, there would be no secondary cause.

2018-05-12 15:33:12 UTC  

Without His act, there would be no result. This said as He created the Natural Law, how then could we say He is bound by it? If one is extra-natural, how then can one be Natural?

2018-05-12 15:33:23 UTC  

That makes sense

2018-05-12 15:34:12 UTC  

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

2018-05-12 15:34:46 UTC  

From a Thomistic perspective, infinity in the Natural world is implausible.

2018-05-12 15:35:17 UTC  

And not to go down the road of science, but I'd say that is also decently held to be the same in that field.

2018-05-12 15:36:29 UTC  

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

2018-05-12 15:37:22 UTC  

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?

2018-05-12 15:39:50 UTC  

Well let us go back to Aristotle, he posited correctly with regards to his rivals the Pythagoreans, that "objects of sense" (i.e. Nature) cannot be infinite. How can there be an infinite amount of causes in a natural world? How could something naturally exist forever? If this isn't the case, how then could something come from nothing without an extra-natural act by something unnatural?

2018-05-12 15:41:10 UTC  

The Angelic Doctor conceded plenty, however he felt with regard to this that the only way that could be is if God had always and infinitely was with the universe, but he certainly didn't accept that notion, and I don't find it well grounded in Thomism.

2018-05-12 15:41:37 UTC  


2018-05-12 15:41:53 UTC  

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

2018-05-12 15:42:02 UTC  

But my answer to your first message

2018-05-12 15:42:12 UTC  

I hold him in extreme esteem, but in some matters he was repudiated by the magisterium. Example being, the Immaculate Conception.

2018-05-12 15:42:14 UTC  

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

2018-05-12 15:42:41 UTC  

Not naturally.

2018-05-12 15:42:48 UTC  


2018-05-12 15:42:54 UTC  

So if it can naturally exist forever

2018-05-12 15:43:03 UTC  

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

2018-05-12 15:43:15 UTC  

Lofi Hip-hop to study and beat minorities to

2018-05-12 15:44:07 UTC  

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

2018-05-12 15:44:13 UTC  

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

2018-05-12 15:44:22 UTC  

Again infinity has largely been discredited as, for lack of a better word, paradoxical and illogical. Even physicists have deemed it so. Example being Georges Lemaitre, university of Louvain in Belgium.

2018-05-12 15:44:31 UTC  

No need to apologize.

2018-05-12 15:45:13 UTC  

I'm still learning about what Aristotle meant by the difference of potential and actual infinity.

2018-05-12 15:46:30 UTC  

Mathematic theory isn't my strong suit, but I love how he related the two, it shows his general brilliance if anything.

2018-05-12 15:46:33 UTC  

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

2018-05-12 15:47:33 UTC  

Infinity, being never ending, not expanding either. So this particular infinity deals with all of creation which is guided and defined by time.

2018-05-12 15:47:55 UTC  

No infinity has not at all been discredited by physicists

2018-05-12 15:48:15 UTC  

I never said all of them.

2018-05-12 15:48:21 UTC  

I simply gave examples where it has been.

2018-05-12 15:48:45 UTC