Message from @Blebleh

Discord ID: 322589164459655200


2017-06-09 04:09:38 UTC  

In an Absolute sense, reality is just totality, yes. But then it becomes impossible to say anything about it without using abstractions.

2017-06-09 04:09:38 UTC  

@Firefly Do you have a book list

2017-06-09 04:09:53 UTC  

why can't it be something natural?

2017-06-09 04:09:54 UTC  

If something had to move God then the first mover cannot be God.

2017-06-09 04:10:06 UTC  

Is it that difficult to understand?

2017-06-09 04:10:08 UTC  

Tengri is natural

2017-06-09 04:10:24 UTC  

@Deleted User yes, but it is not reality that follow abstractions. It is abstractions that follow reality. And in the case of first mover is opposite.

2017-06-09 04:10:44 UTC  

then god would be the father of who created us?

2017-06-09 04:10:48 UTC  

Such is the nature of all theory.

2017-06-09 04:11:03 UTC  

We can never reach an Absolute understanding of reality.

2017-06-09 04:11:19 UTC  

God is the father of everything. The First mover.

2017-06-09 04:11:58 UTC  

Thanks

2017-06-09 04:12:01 UTC  

ok then we could find the origin of our universe and still ask for who created it and so on

2017-06-09 04:12:06 UTC  

until there's nothing

2017-06-09 04:12:32 UTC  

I don't think you understand the argument Aquinas is trying to make.

2017-06-09 04:13:35 UTC  

In what you quoted

2017-06-09 04:13:45 UTC  

Aquinas still assumes that bigger moves the weaker

2017-06-09 04:13:55 UTC  

but look how in space there isn't gravity

2017-06-09 04:14:06 UTC  

and in a different universe or part this could be different too

2017-06-09 04:14:10 UTC  

or a multiverse

2017-06-09 04:14:21 UTC  

Is there any proof to a multiverse?

2017-06-09 04:14:34 UTC  

@Mros as many as with first mover

2017-06-09 04:14:38 UTC  

I'm not so advanced

2017-06-09 04:14:39 UTC  

@Firefly So when you say, it is only based on abstraction; as far as abstractions go, it is still logical. You are correct about saying the abstractions follow reality, not the other way around. It is not an Absolute statement. It is based on the abstraction of motion.

2017-06-09 04:14:43 UTC  

I don't know proofs of it

2017-06-09 04:15:03 UTC  

Is there any logical explanation for the existence of the multiverse or is it just pure speculation?

2017-06-09 04:15:09 UTC  

@Deleted User correct. But most abstractions that people had in history went wrong.

2017-06-09 04:15:32 UTC  

So we really don't have a prove.

2017-06-09 04:15:44 UTC  

But we have a lot of fanatics

2017-06-09 04:15:54 UTC  

Believing in abstractions.

2017-06-09 04:16:47 UTC  

hypotheses, I found a video explaining an alternative but I don't remember it, neither I find the video; I'd have so search it, Still, I don't think I could explain this since I'm not advanced

2017-06-09 04:16:55 UTC  

@Firefly Abstractions become wrong when they are shown to be illogical. This argument is 800 years old and has not been shown to be illogical based on reason or science.

2017-06-09 04:17:13 UTC  

Is there a proof of God?

2017-06-09 04:17:31 UTC  

Aquinas is still making a logical and reasonable explanation.

2017-06-09 04:17:42 UTC  

It is the closest thing to proof that exists.

2017-06-09 04:17:59 UTC  

Like the other ones, it could be a lot of things

2017-06-09 04:18:19 UTC  

Of course it isn't definitive proof, but it at least makes it a possibility.

2017-06-09 04:18:47 UTC  

@Deleted User That is not true. Abstractions are wrong when they are not reflecting reality.

2017-06-09 04:18:53 UTC  

@Mros Multiverse theory is just a postulation to try and explain the beginning of the universe. It is a secular theory for the first mover of this universe, even though it does not explain the ultimate first mover. It is special pleading.

2017-06-09 04:19:03 UTC  

Who proved what doesn't matter.