Message from @Eoppa
Discord ID: 623687156224884736
..
The Prime mover
which in turn
bares a lot of similarity to kalam
No
ok thats why i was confused
Kalam is about per accidens
o
Aquinas is an Aristotelian
Kalam is Arab
well I suppose the next step is to prove that the prime mover is God
Well the next 36 steps are a brief proof to prove it's immutable, eternal, incorporeal, immaterial, perfect, fully good, omnipotent, omniscient, and intelligent
Brief in that each step could be expanded to a whole other 50 steps
If we really wanted
Let's take immutability, as we already touched on that, pure act cannot change
As it has no potentiality to actualize
God *cannot* do something?
Wrong
Doing is act
o ok continue
ah better question
could I not pull something out of my ass
that has all those properties
No?
and how are these properties only limited to the Christian God
sure i could
Well it excludes Hinduism, and all polytheistic religions
Any religion like pagans who think the Gods are corporeal or material
But at this point you cannot be an atheist
So far all you established is that there is a pure act
And it's necessary ramifications
Immutability, unity, etc
Perhaps im not understanding, I do science, not philosophy
Maybe you are not, it took me 4 books before I accepted the argument
I didn't have anyone to explain why "x criticism" isn't right
wat
I'm saying it's a much more philosophically heavy argument than Dawkins or Hitchens thought
So it's understandable you wouldn't get it
I barely understand what Matt Dillahunty is saying half the time lole
If you watch Ed Feser debate this, he sounds like he lives in a library