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.
.

C. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because
C.1. 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.

If you take infinite as an abstract concept it exists, the numbers are the best example, they are not just infinitely big, they are infinitely small. But things get complicated applying the concept to other things. For example, a coin has its limits in some inches, but that inches could be divided infinitely, so, we have a thing that is finite to the outside, but infinite to the inside. Now, imagine something infinitely small in something finite, from the small object the, finite bigger object would be infinite. Also, just to show another interpretation, you could have an unidimensional being moving forward in a circle, and for that being its journey would be infinite, because the beginning is also the end.

But all that is just on the abstract, in reality we don't know for sure, there are things that are finite (like a ball and a fire) and things that appear to be infinite (like the gravity of a black hole, space and time), and then we have the famous "matter isn't created or destroyed, just transformed". But at the end, there is no 100% certainty, there are just theories. So, even if we find an irrefutable proof of the end or beginning of all known things in the universe, that wouldn't mean the the infinity is impossible, just like in the first argument, a relative cannot became an absolute by itself.

And the same described above apply to efficient causes: If its a linear succession of causes, we cannot know if its infinite. But it could also not be linear and be a circular loop, or any other strange shape you imagine (that is also a difficult topic because the little we know about time).
.

Also, i have to point out that I'm avoiding the fact that this contradicts B, because, if everything needs a cause, then the first cause also needs a cause, so, and that cause will needs a cause and so on, it will extend to an "infinite beginning". But since this is addressed in the last point, i will not touch this until then.
.

D. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect.

I'm agree on this one but just want to point out that is true even if all the previous ones are wrong ,because, by definition, an effect its the product of something else. So, even if something is its own cause, taking away the cause will mean literally taking away the effect. But, except for the case in which we take B for granted, there could a be an uncaused cause (not the same as a thing that is this own cause).
.

E. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause.

This isn't very clear, because it doesn't specifies if there is just one chain of causes, or multiple.

If we are taking only one chain in the hole existence, then this could just be true if B and C are true as well (discounting the contradiction that i mentioned).
If B is wrong, then you could have an uncaused cause in the middle that breaks the chain of causes. Then, you have more than one chain. Or you have just one self caused cause in the entire chain, without subsequent causes.
If C is wrong then you could have a chain of causes that its infinite towards one side, or both. By one side i mean that it could have no beginning (not first cause), or no end (no ultimate cause).

But if we are taking a multiple chain of events, then an uncaused cause could be the first and final cause on that chain. So, B doesn't have to be true, but you still need C for the same reasons explained above.
.

F. 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.

I think that the premise here takes the infinite in both sides, because you can have a beginning without an end, and an end without a beginning. So, i see this as a partial truth.
.

G. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause,
G.1. to which everyone gives the name of God.

I think that this try's to solve the B-C contradiction, but if we take this and B then, we have the same problem of the B-C contradiction, everything needs a cause, and that first cause also needs a cause, and here we have the infinity problem that contradicts C.

And i don't know where does god came from in this statement. Even ignoring the contradictions, the conclusion would be just G, or we should redefine God as "the first efficient cause" taking away all the religious and metaphysics stuff surrounding it. Because a "firs efficient cause" could be anything, it doesn't need conscious, omnipotence, omniscience or any of those extra attributes, whatsmore, the "first cause" doesn't even need to be alive or exists right know.

And there is also the problem of multiple chain of causes, which, in this case, would lead to multiple "gods".
.

🚨 Austism alert 🚨 Austism alert 🚨

These are just the conclusions that i made. If a commit any mistake in writing the original prepositions, misunderstood something, made any logical fallacy, or miss something out (maybe the full work has extra information needed to complete these claims), pleas tell me, I'm open to possible corrections to the statements.

And sorry for the grammar mistakes (I'm not very good with english) and the overextended and delayed respond, i just wanted to be as clear and complete as possible and got distracted by other things while writing it.

I will read the other authors later.

And just for the record, I'm genuinely interest in (if your point is right) known the truth or (if your point isn't right) convince you that you don't need god or religion to be a good and righteous human being or just to have a fulfilling and happy life with purpose. I have many strong reasons to think in that way, but that would be a little offtopic in the "god existence" matter, however I'm also open to discuss that.

Yeah, @Deleted User used to tell me that a lot, at lest it helps with optimizing programs xD

not real capoid hours

😔

Are you *still* going on bro?

yes mate

had that feeling last night

would u like to DM @Pyprus Ahkator

@Enryse
>I don't know of a uncaused cause, but that doesn't mean that is impossible, even if nobody has found one
First, the former paragraph refers to something being the cause of itself. Second, it explains why it is impossible, Aquinas never said "it is impossible because none is known".

Then you are giving the same attempts at arguing for infinite regressions you said last time. Numbers aren't entities that exist. Numbers are descriptors of amount. You can come up with any description, but those aren't things that exist. That is like saying that "red" exists. No, "red things" exist. Numbers aren't something **actual**, they are just something potential with regards to some aspects. That is why Aquinas heavily handles the concept of "actual" and "potential". The numbers in the heads of people aren't anything actual. Your thought seems to be that if you can think of that concept, it exists. Following that line of thought,since God, as part of his essence, exists, then you must say God is real and exists.

>Also, i have to point out that I'm avoiding the fact that this contradicts B, because, if everything needs a cause, then the first cause also needs a cause
My God I can't believe fedoralords still repeat their very same mistakes century after century. Aquinas NEVER says everything has a cause, but that there can't be an infinite regression of causes. Nowhere in Aquinas' arguments it says "since everything has a cause...". Precisely, the point is that there MUST be an uncaused cause.

--
My advice is, next time, instead of spending 58347 years writing a huge wall of text to desperately try to keep your retarded worldview on life support, you actually use a couple of neurons with actual precision and efficiency like Aquinas does, which is the opposite of your entire counter-argument: "numbers 'infinite', so there can be infnite regression!". Have you even stopped to think what people mean by "there are infinite numbers"? Or what numbers are? Or do you just hear the word "inifnite" twice and then consider that enough to say there can be infinite regression of causes?

And it may surprise you to know that since Aquinas actually used his brain, he has a huge corpus of theology attaching all those attributes to God. Unlike you, who, not thinking for a millisecond, hurry to say "those aren't needed!", not caring about the implications of being the uncaused cause.

Have you, for example, considered that if I were to say that there are two different uncaused causes, there would be differences in their essence, which means it is not necessary for an uncaused cause to have something, which means having it or not depends on something else, meaning they are not ultimate uncaused causes anymore?
Or that whatever is not an act of the own will is just a consequence of something (or "governed" by it), which means the first cause must cause by its own will? Or that by being the first cause which doesn't depend on anything, all forms are contained in the intellect of the cause that causes by its will meaning there is perfect knowledge?