you are right, maybe there is no empirical way to prove it, but if you want to make it irrefutable, then it has to be proved in the abstract like maths

Still?

Maths don’t even support each other

Nothing has to be proved you entitled nit

Ever heard of Gödels incompleteness theorems?

some logical paradox?

Maths don’t add up as a language, they stop making sense when put together

i will google it

Ok

@Grengar yeah, insults are a good way to prove something

@Enryse may I suggest that reading the philosophers who actually make the claim may be more beneficial than asking internet strangers?

you could redirect me to some of them

please

Http://www.google.com

Lol

yeah that didnt helped the last time

i have invested a lot of time seeking a proof of god existence, of an after life, and other things, but i haven't found any that is irrefutable

because, believe or not, i want the after life to be true

Thomas Aquinas is one, Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange

That's pretty selfish bro

Yeah, Aquinas is for the niggas who always (allegedly) seek reason

I honestly have inclined more towards Palamite theology, but Aquinas is still an og big dog gangsta in this game

Yeah, I think I'm more inclined to Scotism myself

Also, MacIntyre is good too

i think i have read something about Aquinas, he's the one of the uncaused causer and the "there has to be a beginning" thing right?

but i would read it again, maybe i miss out something important

Yes, but you should read his arguments

Yep

theological sum right?

Correct

@MawLr is this ok? https://www.webdianoia.com/medieval/aquinate/aquino_teolg_2.htm

and the English version https://www.iep.utm.edu/aq-ph-th/#SH2b

In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for then it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate [cause] is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or only one. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God (ST Ia 2.3).

I’d recommend reading his works rather than a summary

Who tryna do a prayer sesh

im jus gonna start eating bread and watered down wine

roman niggas

well, it appears that i have excided the maximum of characters that discord allows, i had to copy everything in notepad

That only happens to me when im calling for the death of all transexuals in an attempt to unify the NAZBOL GANG

@Helter Seltzer ☧ uhhhhhhhhhhhhh post it in <#619317410037760011>

I would separate the argument in statements in order to analyze it more orderly, and just point out the points that i have problems with...

A. In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes.

B. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for then it would be prior to itself, which is impossible.

I don't know of a uncaused cause, but that doesn't mean that is impossible, even if nobody has found one. Its the same thing with the atheist's when they claim that god its impossible because the lack of evidence.
.