fine

If you can't now dm me later

alright lets start with the first

now, I don't just respond to links

I want *you* to put the argument in your own words

Prima Via: The Argument of the Unmoved MoverEdit

SummaryEdit

In the world, we can see that at least some things are changing. Whatever is changing is being changed by something else. If that by which it is changing is itself changed, then it too is being changed by something else. But this chain cannot be infinitely long, so there must be something that causes change without itself changing. This everyone understands to be God.

i said

*your own words*

No

i don't respond to copypastes

@Riley that's the argument. Refute it

I'm not presenting my own arguments retard

^

I'm presenting his arguments

ok how the fuck do you get from "there must be a first cause" to

"therefore God"

Read it

"there must be a first cause, therefore the first cause is god <:brainlet:618283060789772328>"

Explaination - Aquinas uses the term "motion" in his argument, but by this he understands any kind of "change", more specifically a transit from potentiality to actuality.[14] (For example, a puddle growing to be larger would be counted inside the boundaries of Aquinas' usage.) Since a potential does not yet exist, it cannot cause itself to exist and can therefore only be brought into existence by something already existing.[1]

Are you incapable of understanding logical arguments?

i understand the argument

so lets assume that i agree

there must have been a first cause

alright

a prime mover

i agree

so

prove that the prime mover is a god

i could use this argument to justify the existence of...well...just about anything

In the world, we can see that at least some things are changing. Whatever is changing is being changed by something else. If that by which it is changing is itself changed, then it too is being changed by something else. But this chain cannot be infinitely long, so there must be something that causes change without itself changing. This everyone understands to be the ~~nine~~ eight divines.

Would the argument really work with a set of things?

wat

like do you get the point im trying to make

Yes.

what i want to know is how one gets from

"There must have been a first cause"

to

"therefore, god"

@Maksim thoughts?

Still reading up on all 5 points

Give me a few