Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search

hide menu

zzitro    

Rank #7325 on Comments
zzitro Avatar Level 284 Comments: More Thumbs Than A Hiroshima Survivor
Offline
Send mail to zzitro Block zzitro Invite zzitro to be your friend flag avatar
Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Gender: male
Age: 21
Date Signed Up:3/16/2012
Last Login:11/28/2014
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#7325
Highest Content Rank:#14010
Highest Comment Rank:#420
Content Thumbs: 81 total,  137 ,  56
Comment Thumbs: 8831 total,  9623 ,  792
Content Level Progress: 40% (2/5)
Level 6 Content: New Here → Level 7 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress: 29% (29/100)
Level 284 Comments: More Thumbs Than A Hiroshima Survivor → Level 285 Comments: More Thumbs Than A Hiroshima Survivor
Subscribers:0
Content Views:11381
Times Content Favorited:12 times
Total Comments Made:1264
FJ Points:8547

latest user's comments

#149 - Thanks! 10/23/2014 on Right in the feels +1
#66 - Picture  [+] (2 new replies) 10/23/2014 on Right in the feels +25
#134 - twoderrick (10/23/2014) [-]
Take this.
#149 - zzitro (10/23/2014) [-]
Thanks!
#7 - lol, that giggle at the end 10/15/2014 on Just do it, Kevin! +9
#11 - I like that FJ skips content you have seen recently.  [+] (1 new reply) 10/15/2014 on It's an old meme, sir +24
User avatar #23 - WATCHAGUNADOBOUTIT (10/15/2014) [-]
second
#40 - In case you were interested 10/12/2014 on Around the Internet PART 21 0
#94 - My cats name is also Simba 09/30/2014 on Finland 0
#114 - I began to have my doubts, but when it got to the one where bl… 09/28/2014 on Interesting Facts 0
#44 - As in tear himself a new one 09/28/2014 on This will happen to all SJWS 0
#155 - I agree, though personally I lean towards option 2. Y…  [+] (1 new reply) 09/27/2014 on context +1
User avatar #165 - repostal (09/28/2014) [-]
Good points on my examples. I guess with my second example it would be that the first event just occurred. ie the universe just suddenly appeared out of nothing with no cause - which is like your option 2, but without any cause.
Personally, I think a first mover is fairly logical, but wanted to put another argument out since I don't think either can be proved on logic alone.
#154 - So your saying that I am wrong because I used a part of Aquina…  [+] (1 new reply) 09/27/2014 on context 0
#172 - greyhoundfd (09/28/2014) [-]
My point is that if you want to defend not-the-catholic-God, then you need to be phrasing things better. If you want to say that there might be a supernatural origin for the universe, then say that instead of "God created the universe because xyz" and then later trying to cover it up by saying "I'm not talking about God, I'm talking about a supernatural event".

If I stood up and loudly shouted "ALLAH IS GREAT" and then when people got mad said that I consider allah the same thing as life, and I meant "Life is great", then no one would be willing to acknowledge that as a valid argument.

Your entire argument up until I called you out on it consisted of "God exists, Thomas Aquinas had a proof for it, so accept what I'm saying.", not "A supernatural event created the universe, we should consider it the equivalent of God, Thomas Aquinas has an explanation that works for this."

Regardless of where this goes, you're still wrong because Einstein was a spinozist, and neither believed in a metaphysical "god" as an explanation for the origin of the universe, nor in a physical/personal "God" like Christianity did.
#34 - This is frightening 09/27/2014 on Quit horse-n around 0
#135 - Yes, I wasn't discussing the religious concept of a god, but r…  [+] (6 new replies) 09/27/2014 on context 0
User avatar #153 - repostal (09/27/2014) [-]
The best counterargument is that the 'first mover" hypothesis doesn't really prove much. Option 1 seems about as logical as option 2, in either case something is required to have existed forever - either natural or supernatural. And if it is a supernatural 'first mover' it may not have a conscious mind, so 'god' would have a very loose definition in this case.

Other options could also be possible
- We are a simulation of a more advanced society
- Spacetime is curved so that there is a natural first point with nothing before it. Similar to how you cant go farther north than the north pole>.
User avatar #155 - zzitro (09/27/2014) [-]
I agree, though personally I lean towards option 2.

You also brought up some interesting possibilities. My thought is that they are similar or could fall under the 2 options.
- Wouldn't the more advanced society have the same problem, unless their laws of physics are so fundamentally different we can't imagine what life would be like?

- If there is a first point in time, even if time can cycle to that point would there need to be an event outside of time to cause that first point? Or an event that occurs at that point as well?
User avatar #165 - repostal (09/28/2014) [-]
Good points on my examples. I guess with my second example it would be that the first event just occurred. ie the universe just suddenly appeared out of nothing with no cause - which is like your option 2, but without any cause.
Personally, I think a first mover is fairly logical, but wanted to put another argument out since I don't think either can be proved on logic alone.
#138 - greyhoundfd (09/27/2014) [-]
I know, I get that, but that's not what Thomas Aquinas was trying to prove. I get that you're not defending the Catholic God or anything like that, but you're defending Thomas Aquinas' views on Theology. If you said "I agree with his ideas of a first cause, but I don't think it was a religious god" then your argument makes sense. Trying to claim that Thomas Aquinas wasn't trying to prove that God exists actually is "wrong and stupid" which, regardless of what you've been told to protect your self-esteem, is possible.

I don't think that religious people as a collective do or don't "have brains", but I'll tell you for certain that the ones who do won't be the ones taking legitimate philosophical ideas and then make them things that they aren't, then acting condescendingly when people call them out on it.

Also, you've made an incredibly basic mistake which is labeling "a god" as a proper noun. You don't use the word "Allah" or "Yahweh" to describe a generic supernatural being, so don't use "God". Just say "a god" or "a supernatural event". Yes, I might be harsh, but when people like you start debating and using the wrong terms, bastardizing philosophies, and then implying that I'm the ignorant one.

Jesus Christ, I usually don't recommend this but you need to taking a fucking philosophy course.
User avatar #154 - zzitro (09/27/2014) [-]
So your saying that I am wrong because I used a part of Aquinas' argument and he was trying to defend the Catholic God?
I never claimed he wasn't trying to prove the Catholic God, I am also not using his entire argument.

Also I believe that if anything is to be labeled God it should be this entity. It is not just a "supernatural event" an event has a cause, I am labeling this as an entity since it does not have a cause. Even if this entity doesn't interact.

In any case this is a purely a philosophical argument. I am not stating that this is a truth, but exposing the my logic behind my statements. I am willing to change my opinion and listen to any points you may have. However you haven't really brought up any points yourself (save the labeling, I will agree that there is room for argument there). Saying you are wrong because you are ignorant isn't really doing that for me.
Granted I have not taken any philosophy course, an explanation as to why you disagree would be better than thats not right.
#172 - greyhoundfd (09/28/2014) [-]
My point is that if you want to defend not-the-catholic-God, then you need to be phrasing things better. If you want to say that there might be a supernatural origin for the universe, then say that instead of "God created the universe because xyz" and then later trying to cover it up by saying "I'm not talking about God, I'm talking about a supernatural event".

If I stood up and loudly shouted "ALLAH IS GREAT" and then when people got mad said that I consider allah the same thing as life, and I meant "Life is great", then no one would be willing to acknowledge that as a valid argument.

Your entire argument up until I called you out on it consisted of "God exists, Thomas Aquinas had a proof for it, so accept what I'm saying.", not "A supernatural event created the universe, we should consider it the equivalent of God, Thomas Aquinas has an explanation that works for this."

Regardless of where this goes, you're still wrong because Einstein was a spinozist, and neither believed in a metaphysical "god" as an explanation for the origin of the universe, nor in a physical/personal "God" like Christianity did.
#133 - Comment deleted  [+] (1 new reply) 09/27/2014 on context 0
#137 - greyhoundfd has deleted their comment.
#119 - Lets take the concept that everything that occurs needs a caus…  [+] (11 new replies) 09/27/2014 on context +2
#124 - greyhoundfd (09/27/2014) [-]
That leaves two possibilities:
1) There is a unique physical entity which obeys none of the physical laws of our universe, is capable of physically integrating itself into our universe in a way which allows it to manipulate matter and energy at will, is capable of a level of finesse that allows it to manipulate and directly communicate in the native languages of any human species using only this manipulation of matter and energy, and apparently exists both within and without the universe simultaneously, and was discovered by a people who at the time believed that the world was flat and the sun revolved around the Earth, but cannot be discovered by a people that are advanced enough to launch satellites out of the solar system into interstellar space.

2) You're wrong, and the actual scientific explanations we have for the universe are more accurate than yours.

This honestly just sounds like you saying "I am familiar with a philosophical proof for god, but I don't understand it, and I expect you to believe that it's correct even though I am incapable of explaining it and acknowledging its flaws. Now have some bullshit explanations and stop whining."
#133 - zzitro has deleted their comment.
#137 - greyhoundfd has deleted their comment.
User avatar #132 - repostal (09/27/2014) [-]
I think you missed his main point.

If you have a cause and effect and a linear timeline then there are two possibilities: Either time has always existed and there will be an infinite number of causes that precede it. Or there would exist a some point a 'first cause' that wasn't itself caused - if this 'first cause' does exist it could be considered supernatural by definition, but wouldn't necessarily look like any god of an organized religion.
User avatar #135 - zzitro (09/27/2014) [-]
Yes, I wasn't discussing the religious concept of a god, but rather the concept of a first cause - God.

This "first cause" entity is a necessity if we are to avoid the first option. An entity that actualize potentials without it itself having a cause could only be labeled as God. This is the God that Einstein believed in, as well as many other scientists around the world.

Frankly I was hoping you could expose a better counter argument than your are wrong and stupid. Especially since I didn't preach religion or deny a scientific claim.
User avatar #153 - repostal (09/27/2014) [-]
The best counterargument is that the 'first mover" hypothesis doesn't really prove much. Option 1 seems about as logical as option 2, in either case something is required to have existed forever - either natural or supernatural. And if it is a supernatural 'first mover' it may not have a conscious mind, so 'god' would have a very loose definition in this case.

Other options could also be possible
- We are a simulation of a more advanced society
- Spacetime is curved so that there is a natural first point with nothing before it. Similar to how you cant go farther north than the north pole>.
User avatar #155 - zzitro (09/27/2014) [-]
I agree, though personally I lean towards option 2.

You also brought up some interesting possibilities. My thought is that they are similar or could fall under the 2 options.
- Wouldn't the more advanced society have the same problem, unless their laws of physics are so fundamentally different we can't imagine what life would be like?

- If there is a first point in time, even if time can cycle to that point would there need to be an event outside of time to cause that first point? Or an event that occurs at that point as well?
User avatar #165 - repostal (09/28/2014) [-]
Good points on my examples. I guess with my second example it would be that the first event just occurred. ie the universe just suddenly appeared out of nothing with no cause - which is like your option 2, but without any cause.
Personally, I think a first mover is fairly logical, but wanted to put another argument out since I don't think either can be proved on logic alone.
#138 - greyhoundfd (09/27/2014) [-]
I know, I get that, but that's not what Thomas Aquinas was trying to prove. I get that you're not defending the Catholic God or anything like that, but you're defending Thomas Aquinas' views on Theology. If you said "I agree with his ideas of a first cause, but I don't think it was a religious god" then your argument makes sense. Trying to claim that Thomas Aquinas wasn't trying to prove that God exists actually is "wrong and stupid" which, regardless of what you've been told to protect your self-esteem, is possible.

I don't think that religious people as a collective do or don't "have brains", but I'll tell you for certain that the ones who do won't be the ones taking legitimate philosophical ideas and then make them things that they aren't, then acting condescendingly when people call them out on it.

Also, you've made an incredibly basic mistake which is labeling "a god" as a proper noun. You don't use the word "Allah" or "Yahweh" to describe a generic supernatural being, so don't use "God". Just say "a god" or "a supernatural event". Yes, I might be harsh, but when people like you start debating and using the wrong terms, bastardizing philosophies, and then implying that I'm the ignorant one.

Jesus Christ, I usually don't recommend this but you need to taking a fucking philosophy course.
User avatar #154 - zzitro (09/27/2014) [-]
So your saying that I am wrong because I used a part of Aquinas' argument and he was trying to defend the Catholic God?
I never claimed he wasn't trying to prove the Catholic God, I am also not using his entire argument.

Also I believe that if anything is to be labeled God it should be this entity. It is not just a "supernatural event" an event has a cause, I am labeling this as an entity since it does not have a cause. Even if this entity doesn't interact.

In any case this is a purely a philosophical argument. I am not stating that this is a truth, but exposing the my logic behind my statements. I am willing to change my opinion and listen to any points you may have. However you haven't really brought up any points yourself (save the labeling, I will agree that there is room for argument there). Saying you are wrong because you are ignorant isn't really doing that for me.
Granted I have not taken any philosophy course, an explanation as to why you disagree would be better than thats not right.
#172 - greyhoundfd (09/28/2014) [-]
My point is that if you want to defend not-the-catholic-God, then you need to be phrasing things better. If you want to say that there might be a supernatural origin for the universe, then say that instead of "God created the universe because xyz" and then later trying to cover it up by saying "I'm not talking about God, I'm talking about a supernatural event".

If I stood up and loudly shouted "ALLAH IS GREAT" and then when people got mad said that I consider allah the same thing as life, and I meant "Life is great", then no one would be willing to acknowledge that as a valid argument.

Your entire argument up until I called you out on it consisted of "God exists, Thomas Aquinas had a proof for it, so accept what I'm saying.", not "A supernatural event created the universe, we should consider it the equivalent of God, Thomas Aquinas has an explanation that works for this."

Regardless of where this goes, you're still wrong because Einstein was a spinozist, and neither believed in a metaphysical "god" as an explanation for the origin of the universe, nor in a physical/personal "God" like Christianity did.
#52 - hmmmmm, I'll just watch Naruto instead jk, I won't …  [+] (1 new reply) 09/27/2014 on treasure 0
#64 - Womens Study Major (09/27/2014) [-]
the anime has so few filler episodes it doesn't even matter, there are like 1-3 filler episodes after each arc, if at all. After episode 600 you can tell they're using fewer manga pages per episode but still no fillers. It's a really good anime
#48 - Im so glad you enjoyed my story, I'll give you another one. … 09/27/2014 on Things On A Rabbit Compilation 0
#97 - He is the cause, thats why he is God. Has always been alwa…  [+] (13 new replies) 09/27/2014 on context -1
#111 - greyhoundfd (09/27/2014) [-]
You can't have a physical or metaphysical god and exempt that god from a cause and expect to be taken seriously. If you view god as an abstract or a concept, then that argument makes sense, but in order for this to be valid proof for anything it has to also be falsifiable, which saying "But God just is the cause" is not
User avatar #119 - zzitro (09/27/2014) [-]
Lets take the concept that everything that occurs needs a cause. Everything has a set of potentials that needs something to act upon it to realize one its potentials. These also have to follow the laws of our physical universe.

For example, yesterdays rain was caused by the cold and warm front crossing. I moved my arm as a result of the electrical impulses fired by my brain. Now you can keep going further and further back. On the universal scale we have reached the big bang, and there are solid theories as to the cause of that as well. However eventually you have two options.
1. There is an infinite chain of cause and effects that go back through time infinitely. For this to be true we would need a negative infinity, this would also mean that there was no start to anything. This leads to option 2.
2.The other option is that there was a first cause, one that actualized a potential without anything before it changing. Therefore this entity would have to be always have been (eternal), exists outside of the need for a cause to actualize a potential (independent from our physical laws). It would be self-explanatory with nothing above it, before it, or supporting it.
#124 - greyhoundfd (09/27/2014) [-]
That leaves two possibilities:
1) There is a unique physical entity which obeys none of the physical laws of our universe, is capable of physically integrating itself into our universe in a way which allows it to manipulate matter and energy at will, is capable of a level of finesse that allows it to manipulate and directly communicate in the native languages of any human species using only this manipulation of matter and energy, and apparently exists both within and without the universe simultaneously, and was discovered by a people who at the time believed that the world was flat and the sun revolved around the Earth, but cannot be discovered by a people that are advanced enough to launch satellites out of the solar system into interstellar space.

2) You're wrong, and the actual scientific explanations we have for the universe are more accurate than yours.

This honestly just sounds like you saying "I am familiar with a philosophical proof for god, but I don't understand it, and I expect you to believe that it's correct even though I am incapable of explaining it and acknowledging its flaws. Now have some bullshit explanations and stop whining."
#133 - zzitro has deleted their comment.
#137 - greyhoundfd has deleted their comment.
User avatar #132 - repostal (09/27/2014) [-]
I think you missed his main point.

If you have a cause and effect and a linear timeline then there are two possibilities: Either time has always existed and there will be an infinite number of causes that precede it. Or there would exist a some point a 'first cause' that wasn't itself caused - if this 'first cause' does exist it could be considered supernatural by definition, but wouldn't necessarily look like any god of an organized religion.
User avatar #135 - zzitro (09/27/2014) [-]
Yes, I wasn't discussing the religious concept of a god, but rather the concept of a first cause - God.

This "first cause" entity is a necessity if we are to avoid the first option. An entity that actualize potentials without it itself having a cause could only be labeled as God. This is the God that Einstein believed in, as well as many other scientists around the world.

Frankly I was hoping you could expose a better counter argument than your are wrong and stupid. Especially since I didn't preach religion or deny a scientific claim.
User avatar #153 - repostal (09/27/2014) [-]
The best counterargument is that the 'first mover" hypothesis doesn't really prove much. Option 1 seems about as logical as option 2, in either case something is required to have existed forever - either natural or supernatural. And if it is a supernatural 'first mover' it may not have a conscious mind, so 'god' would have a very loose definition in this case.

Other options could also be possible
- We are a simulation of a more advanced society
- Spacetime is curved so that there is a natural first point with nothing before it. Similar to how you cant go farther north than the north pole>.
User avatar #155 - zzitro (09/27/2014) [-]
I agree, though personally I lean towards option 2.

You also brought up some interesting possibilities. My thought is that they are similar or could fall under the 2 options.
- Wouldn't the more advanced society have the same problem, unless their laws of physics are so fundamentally different we can't imagine what life would be like?

- If there is a first point in time, even if time can cycle to that point would there need to be an event outside of time to cause that first point? Or an event that occurs at that point as well?
User avatar #165 - repostal (09/28/2014) [-]
Good points on my examples. I guess with my second example it would be that the first event just occurred. ie the universe just suddenly appeared out of nothing with no cause - which is like your option 2, but without any cause.
Personally, I think a first mover is fairly logical, but wanted to put another argument out since I don't think either can be proved on logic alone.
#138 - greyhoundfd (09/27/2014) [-]
I know, I get that, but that's not what Thomas Aquinas was trying to prove. I get that you're not defending the Catholic God or anything like that, but you're defending Thomas Aquinas' views on Theology. If you said "I agree with his ideas of a first cause, but I don't think it was a religious god" then your argument makes sense. Trying to claim that Thomas Aquinas wasn't trying to prove that God exists actually is "wrong and stupid" which, regardless of what you've been told to protect your self-esteem, is possible.

I don't think that religious people as a collective do or don't "have brains", but I'll tell you for certain that the ones who do won't be the ones taking legitimate philosophical ideas and then make them things that they aren't, then acting condescendingly when people call them out on it.

Also, you've made an incredibly basic mistake which is labeling "a god" as a proper noun. You don't use the word "Allah" or "Yahweh" to describe a generic supernatural being, so don't use "God". Just say "a god" or "a supernatural event". Yes, I might be harsh, but when people like you start debating and using the wrong terms, bastardizing philosophies, and then implying that I'm the ignorant one.

Jesus Christ, I usually don't recommend this but you need to taking a fucking philosophy course.
User avatar #154 - zzitro (09/27/2014) [-]
So your saying that I am wrong because I used a part of Aquinas' argument and he was trying to defend the Catholic God?
I never claimed he wasn't trying to prove the Catholic God, I am also not using his entire argument.

Also I believe that if anything is to be labeled God it should be this entity. It is not just a "supernatural event" an event has a cause, I am labeling this as an entity since it does not have a cause. Even if this entity doesn't interact.

In any case this is a purely a philosophical argument. I am not stating that this is a truth, but exposing the my logic behind my statements. I am willing to change my opinion and listen to any points you may have. However you haven't really brought up any points yourself (save the labeling, I will agree that there is room for argument there). Saying you are wrong because you are ignorant isn't really doing that for me.
Granted I have not taken any philosophy course, an explanation as to why you disagree would be better than thats not right.
#172 - greyhoundfd (09/28/2014) [-]
My point is that if you want to defend not-the-catholic-God, then you need to be phrasing things better. If you want to say that there might be a supernatural origin for the universe, then say that instead of "God created the universe because xyz" and then later trying to cover it up by saying "I'm not talking about God, I'm talking about a supernatural event".

If I stood up and loudly shouted "ALLAH IS GREAT" and then when people got mad said that I consider allah the same thing as life, and I meant "Life is great", then no one would be willing to acknowledge that as a valid argument.

Your entire argument up until I called you out on it consisted of "God exists, Thomas Aquinas had a proof for it, so accept what I'm saying.", not "A supernatural event created the universe, we should consider it the equivalent of God, Thomas Aquinas has an explanation that works for this."

Regardless of where this goes, you're still wrong because Einstein was a spinozist, and neither believed in a metaphysical "god" as an explanation for the origin of the universe, nor in a physical/personal "God" like Christianity did.
#84 - The big one is the cause and effect proof. Although various p…  [+] (17 new replies) 09/27/2014 on context 0
User avatar #148 - bikkie (09/27/2014) [-]
Aquinas picked up texts that were only at the time being translated and re-discovered by Aristotle. Like many things, Aristotle was the first to set out the notion of a Prime Mover in any real depth. However, it wasn't anything like the God you would think of now; it was an entity that had no cognition of creation.
User avatar #89 - itsthatguyagain (09/27/2014) [-]
So the argument to that is God is the cause to the effect, which is the universe. What's the cause for god? I'm sorry, I'm not trying to be a dick, I'm just curious.
User avatar #125 - repostal (09/27/2014) [-]
Three Minute Philosophy: Thomas Aquinas

Basis of this argument: In order for anything to exist in a 'cause and effect' world there had to a 'first mover' with no cause. Supposedly this breaks the chain but requires something supernatural.
User avatar #97 - zzitro (09/27/2014) [-]
He is the cause, thats why he is God.
Has always been always will be, separate existence from everything after him. He doesn't have a cause, he is "THE cause".

He is the thing you can't have a cause, because then the chain would continue.
#111 - greyhoundfd (09/27/2014) [-]
You can't have a physical or metaphysical god and exempt that god from a cause and expect to be taken seriously. If you view god as an abstract or a concept, then that argument makes sense, but in order for this to be valid proof for anything it has to also be falsifiable, which saying "But God just is the cause" is not
User avatar #119 - zzitro (09/27/2014) [-]
Lets take the concept that everything that occurs needs a cause. Everything has a set of potentials that needs something to act upon it to realize one its potentials. These also have to follow the laws of our physical universe.

For example, yesterdays rain was caused by the cold and warm front crossing. I moved my arm as a result of the electrical impulses fired by my brain. Now you can keep going further and further back. On the universal scale we have reached the big bang, and there are solid theories as to the cause of that as well. However eventually you have two options.
1. There is an infinite chain of cause and effects that go back through time infinitely. For this to be true we would need a negative infinity, this would also mean that there was no start to anything. This leads to option 2.
2.The other option is that there was a first cause, one that actualized a potential without anything before it changing. Therefore this entity would have to be always have been (eternal), exists outside of the need for a cause to actualize a potential (independent from our physical laws). It would be self-explanatory with nothing above it, before it, or supporting it.
#124 - greyhoundfd (09/27/2014) [-]
That leaves two possibilities:
1) There is a unique physical entity which obeys none of the physical laws of our universe, is capable of physically integrating itself into our universe in a way which allows it to manipulate matter and energy at will, is capable of a level of finesse that allows it to manipulate and directly communicate in the native languages of any human species using only this manipulation of matter and energy, and apparently exists both within and without the universe simultaneously, and was discovered by a people who at the time believed that the world was flat and the sun revolved around the Earth, but cannot be discovered by a people that are advanced enough to launch satellites out of the solar system into interstellar space.

2) You're wrong, and the actual scientific explanations we have for the universe are more accurate than yours.

This honestly just sounds like you saying "I am familiar with a philosophical proof for god, but I don't understand it, and I expect you to believe that it's correct even though I am incapable of explaining it and acknowledging its flaws. Now have some bullshit explanations and stop whining."
#133 - zzitro has deleted their comment.
#137 - greyhoundfd has deleted their comment.
User avatar #132 - repostal (09/27/2014) [-]
I think you missed his main point.

If you have a cause and effect and a linear timeline then there are two possibilities: Either time has always existed and there will be an infinite number of causes that precede it. Or there would exist a some point a 'first cause' that wasn't itself caused - if this 'first cause' does exist it could be considered supernatural by definition, but wouldn't necessarily look like any god of an organized religion.
User avatar #135 - zzitro (09/27/2014) [-]
Yes, I wasn't discussing the religious concept of a god, but rather the concept of a first cause - God.

This "first cause" entity is a necessity if we are to avoid the first option. An entity that actualize potentials without it itself having a cause could only be labeled as God. This is the God that Einstein believed in, as well as many other scientists around the world.

Frankly I was hoping you could expose a better counter argument than your are wrong and stupid. Especially since I didn't preach religion or deny a scientific claim.
User avatar #153 - repostal (09/27/2014) [-]
The best counterargument is that the 'first mover" hypothesis doesn't really prove much. Option 1 seems about as logical as option 2, in either case something is required to have existed forever - either natural or supernatural. And if it is a supernatural 'first mover' it may not have a conscious mind, so 'god' would have a very loose definition in this case.

Other options could also be possible
- We are a simulation of a more advanced society
- Spacetime is curved so that there is a natural first point with nothing before it. Similar to how you cant go farther north than the north pole>.
User avatar #155 - zzitro (09/27/2014) [-]
I agree, though personally I lean towards option 2.

You also brought up some interesting possibilities. My thought is that they are similar or could fall under the 2 options.
- Wouldn't the more advanced society have the same problem, unless their laws of physics are so fundamentally different we can't imagine what life would be like?

- If there is a first point in time, even if time can cycle to that point would there need to be an event outside of time to cause that first point? Or an event that occurs at that point as well?
User avatar #165 - repostal (09/28/2014) [-]
Good points on my examples. I guess with my second example it would be that the first event just occurred. ie the universe just suddenly appeared out of nothing with no cause - which is like your option 2, but without any cause.
Personally, I think a first mover is fairly logical, but wanted to put another argument out since I don't think either can be proved on logic alone.
#138 - greyhoundfd (09/27/2014) [-]
I know, I get that, but that's not what Thomas Aquinas was trying to prove. I get that you're not defending the Catholic God or anything like that, but you're defending Thomas Aquinas' views on Theology. If you said "I agree with his ideas of a first cause, but I don't think it was a religious god" then your argument makes sense. Trying to claim that Thomas Aquinas wasn't trying to prove that God exists actually is "wrong and stupid" which, regardless of what you've been told to protect your self-esteem, is possible.

I don't think that religious people as a collective do or don't "have brains", but I'll tell you for certain that the ones who do won't be the ones taking legitimate philosophical ideas and then make them things that they aren't, then acting condescendingly when people call them out on it.

Also, you've made an incredibly basic mistake which is labeling "a god" as a proper noun. You don't use the word "Allah" or "Yahweh" to describe a generic supernatural being, so don't use "God". Just say "a god" or "a supernatural event". Yes, I might be harsh, but when people like you start debating and using the wrong terms, bastardizing philosophies, and then implying that I'm the ignorant one.

Jesus Christ, I usually don't recommend this but you need to taking a fucking philosophy course.
User avatar #154 - zzitro (09/27/2014) [-]
So your saying that I am wrong because I used a part of Aquinas' argument and he was trying to defend the Catholic God?
I never claimed he wasn't trying to prove the Catholic God, I am also not using his entire argument.

Also I believe that if anything is to be labeled God it should be this entity. It is not just a "supernatural event" an event has a cause, I am labeling this as an entity since it does not have a cause. Even if this entity doesn't interact.

In any case this is a purely a philosophical argument. I am not stating that this is a truth, but exposing the my logic behind my statements. I am willing to change my opinion and listen to any points you may have. However you haven't really brought up any points yourself (save the labeling, I will agree that there is room for argument there). Saying you are wrong because you are ignorant isn't really doing that for me.
Granted I have not taken any philosophy course, an explanation as to why you disagree would be better than thats not right.
#172 - greyhoundfd (09/28/2014) [-]
My point is that if you want to defend not-the-catholic-God, then you need to be phrasing things better. If you want to say that there might be a supernatural origin for the universe, then say that instead of "God created the universe because xyz" and then later trying to cover it up by saying "I'm not talking about God, I'm talking about a supernatural event".

If I stood up and loudly shouted "ALLAH IS GREAT" and then when people got mad said that I consider allah the same thing as life, and I meant "Life is great", then no one would be willing to acknowledge that as a valid argument.

Your entire argument up until I called you out on it consisted of "God exists, Thomas Aquinas had a proof for it, so accept what I'm saying.", not "A supernatural event created the universe, we should consider it the equivalent of God, Thomas Aquinas has an explanation that works for this."

Regardless of where this goes, you're still wrong because Einstein was a spinozist, and neither believed in a metaphysical "god" as an explanation for the origin of the universe, nor in a physical/personal "God" like Christianity did.
#32 - My parents hired a magician for my 6th birthday. The magician…  [+] (2 new replies) 09/27/2014 on Things On A Rabbit Compilation 0
#46 - donttasemebro (09/27/2014) [-]
User avatar #48 - zzitro (09/27/2014) [-]
Im so glad you enjoyed my story, I'll give you another one.

For my 4th birthday my parents put on a puppet show. In the show there was a witch and a knight. Then the witch said "I'm going to steal all of zzitro's cake! bwahaha", that moment I began crying because me and my friends weren't going to get any cake.
#35 - The spider has assumed complete control! 09/27/2014 on nature +3
#42 - Sometimes I think i should watch one piece, but then I am inti…  [+] (5 new replies) 09/27/2014 on treasure +1
User avatar #78 - capslockrage (09/27/2014) [-]
Sometimes I also want to watch it, but then I remember I'm not a faggot
User avatar #46 - friedgreenpomatoes (09/27/2014) [-]
Read the manga then. Most of the anime filler, while good (and blessedly rare), is passable. The movies, though, are awesome.
User avatar #52 - zzitro (09/27/2014) [-]
hmmmmm, I'll just watch Naruto instead
jk, I won't do either
#64 - Womens Study Major (09/27/2014) [-]
the anime has so few filler episodes it doesn't even matter, there are like 1-3 filler episodes after each arc, if at all. After episode 600 you can tell they're using fewer manga pages per episode but still no fillers. It's a really good anime
#43 - nimithecat has deleted their comment.
#31 - That kid is 13! Holy **** , I would have thoug…  [+] (1 new reply) 09/27/2014 on Next time use the Deep Web,... 0
#43 - kingderps (09/27/2014) [-]
Maybe the drugs he was buying were steroids.
#77 - News flash Einstein believed that there was a God. Th…  [+] (24 new replies) 09/27/2014 on context +15
#92 - ministermax (09/27/2014) [-]
I won't hate you, just as I don't hate a retarded child. I'll just be disappointed with the world for a moment or two.
User avatar #100 - foxythepiratefox (09/27/2014) [-]
>2014
>posting pedophile anime cartoons
User avatar #101 - ministermax (09/27/2014) [-]
>2014
>FJ still exists
>Useless points
#102 - foxythepiratefox (09/27/2014) [-]
it's not about points, it's about sending a massage.
#103 - ministermax (09/27/2014) [-]
That feels good, thank you
User avatar #81 - codyxvasco (09/27/2014) [-]
I'm not being an asshole saying "REALLY WHAT PROOFS?!?!!?"

But what proofs? This intrigues me.
User avatar #84 - zzitro (09/27/2014) [-]
The big one is the cause and effect proof. Although various people have somewhat changed it, I think that Thomas Aquinas was the first one state it.

I think he has others, can't really remember but if you google him and his proofs you will find at least interesting reading material.
User avatar #148 - bikkie (09/27/2014) [-]
Aquinas picked up texts that were only at the time being translated and re-discovered by Aristotle. Like many things, Aristotle was the first to set out the notion of a Prime Mover in any real depth. However, it wasn't anything like the God you would think of now; it was an entity that had no cognition of creation.
User avatar #89 - itsthatguyagain (09/27/2014) [-]
So the argument to that is God is the cause to the effect, which is the universe. What's the cause for god? I'm sorry, I'm not trying to be a dick, I'm just curious.
User avatar #125 - repostal (09/27/2014) [-]
Three Minute Philosophy: Thomas Aquinas

Basis of this argument: In order for anything to exist in a 'cause and effect' world there had to a 'first mover' with no cause. Supposedly this breaks the chain but requires something supernatural.
User avatar #97 - zzitro (09/27/2014) [-]
He is the cause, thats why he is God.
Has always been always will be, separate existence from everything after him. He doesn't have a cause, he is "THE cause".

He is the thing you can't have a cause, because then the chain would continue.
#111 - greyhoundfd (09/27/2014) [-]
You can't have a physical or metaphysical god and exempt that god from a cause and expect to be taken seriously. If you view god as an abstract or a concept, then that argument makes sense, but in order for this to be valid proof for anything it has to also be falsifiable, which saying "But God just is the cause" is not
User avatar #119 - zzitro (09/27/2014) [-]
Lets take the concept that everything that occurs needs a cause. Everything has a set of potentials that needs something to act upon it to realize one its potentials. These also have to follow the laws of our physical universe.

For example, yesterdays rain was caused by the cold and warm front crossing. I moved my arm as a result of the electrical impulses fired by my brain. Now you can keep going further and further back. On the universal scale we have reached the big bang, and there are solid theories as to the cause of that as well. However eventually you have two options.
1. There is an infinite chain of cause and effects that go back through time infinitely. For this to be true we would need a negative infinity, this would also mean that there was no start to anything. This leads to option 2.
2.The other option is that there was a first cause, one that actualized a potential without anything before it changing. Therefore this entity would have to be always have been (eternal), exists outside of the need for a cause to actualize a potential (independent from our physical laws). It would be self-explanatory with nothing above it, before it, or supporting it.
#124 - greyhoundfd (09/27/2014) [-]
That leaves two possibilities:
1) There is a unique physical entity which obeys none of the physical laws of our universe, is capable of physically integrating itself into our universe in a way which allows it to manipulate matter and energy at will, is capable of a level of finesse that allows it to manipulate and directly communicate in the native languages of any human species using only this manipulation of matter and energy, and apparently exists both within and without the universe simultaneously, and was discovered by a people who at the time believed that the world was flat and the sun revolved around the Earth, but cannot be discovered by a people that are advanced enough to launch satellites out of the solar system into interstellar space.

2) You're wrong, and the actual scientific explanations we have for the universe are more accurate than yours.

This honestly just sounds like you saying "I am familiar with a philosophical proof for god, but I don't understand it, and I expect you to believe that it's correct even though I am incapable of explaining it and acknowledging its flaws. Now have some bullshit explanations and stop whining."
#133 - zzitro has deleted their comment.
#137 - greyhoundfd has deleted their comment.
User avatar #132 - repostal (09/27/2014) [-]
I think you missed his main point.

If you have a cause and effect and a linear timeline then there are two possibilities: Either time has always existed and there will be an infinite number of causes that precede it. Or there would exist a some point a 'first cause' that wasn't itself caused - if this 'first cause' does exist it could be considered supernatural by definition, but wouldn't necessarily look like any god of an organized religion.
User avatar #135 - zzitro (09/27/2014) [-]
Yes, I wasn't discussing the religious concept of a god, but rather the concept of a first cause - God.

This "first cause" entity is a necessity if we are to avoid the first option. An entity that actualize potentials without it itself having a cause could only be labeled as God. This is the God that Einstein believed in, as well as many other scientists around the world.

Frankly I was hoping you could expose a better counter argument than your are wrong and stupid. Especially since I didn't preach religion or deny a scientific claim.
User avatar #153 - repostal (09/27/2014) [-]
The best counterargument is that the 'first mover" hypothesis doesn't really prove much. Option 1 seems about as logical as option 2, in either case something is required to have existed forever - either natural or supernatural. And if it is a supernatural 'first mover' it may not have a conscious mind, so 'god' would have a very loose definition in this case.

Other options could also be possible
- We are a simulation of a more advanced society
- Spacetime is curved so that there is a natural first point with nothing before it. Similar to how you cant go farther north than the north pole>.
User avatar #155 - zzitro (09/27/2014) [-]
I agree, though personally I lean towards option 2.

You also brought up some interesting possibilities. My thought is that they are similar or could fall under the 2 options.
- Wouldn't the more advanced society have the same problem, unless their laws of physics are so fundamentally different we can't imagine what life would be like?

- If there is a first point in time, even if time can cycle to that point would there need to be an event outside of time to cause that first point? Or an event that occurs at that point as well?
User avatar #165 - repostal (09/28/2014) [-]
Good points on my examples. I guess with my second example it would be that the first event just occurred. ie the universe just suddenly appeared out of nothing with no cause - which is like your option 2, but without any cause.
Personally, I think a first mover is fairly logical, but wanted to put another argument out since I don't think either can be proved on logic alone.
#138 - greyhoundfd (09/27/2014) [-]
I know, I get that, but that's not what Thomas Aquinas was trying to prove. I get that you're not defending the Catholic God or anything like that, but you're defending Thomas Aquinas' views on Theology. If you said "I agree with his ideas of a first cause, but I don't think it was a religious god" then your argument makes sense. Trying to claim that Thomas Aquinas wasn't trying to prove that God exists actually is "wrong and stupid" which, regardless of what you've been told to protect your self-esteem, is possible.

I don't think that religious people as a collective do or don't "have brains", but I'll tell you for certain that the ones who do won't be the ones taking legitimate philosophical ideas and then make them things that they aren't, then acting condescendingly when people call them out on it.

Also, you've made an incredibly basic mistake which is labeling "a god" as a proper noun. You don't use the word "Allah" or "Yahweh" to describe a generic supernatural being, so don't use "God". Just say "a god" or "a supernatural event". Yes, I might be harsh, but when people like you start debating and using the wrong terms, bastardizing philosophies, and then implying that I'm the ignorant one.

Jesus Christ, I usually don't recommend this but you need to taking a fucking philosophy course.
User avatar #154 - zzitro (09/27/2014) [-]
So your saying that I am wrong because I used a part of Aquinas' argument and he was trying to defend the Catholic God?
I never claimed he wasn't trying to prove the Catholic God, I am also not using his entire argument.

Also I believe that if anything is to be labeled God it should be this entity. It is not just a "supernatural event" an event has a cause, I am labeling this as an entity since it does not have a cause. Even if this entity doesn't interact.

In any case this is a purely a philosophical argument. I am not stating that this is a truth, but exposing the my logic behind my statements. I am willing to change my opinion and listen to any points you may have. However you haven't really brought up any points yourself (save the labeling, I will agree that there is room for argument there). Saying you are wrong because you are ignorant isn't really doing that for me.
Granted I have not taken any philosophy course, an explanation as to why you disagree would be better than thats not right.
#172 - greyhoundfd (09/28/2014) [-]
My point is that if you want to defend not-the-catholic-God, then you need to be phrasing things better. If you want to say that there might be a supernatural origin for the universe, then say that instead of "God created the universe because xyz" and then later trying to cover it up by saying "I'm not talking about God, I'm talking about a supernatural event".

If I stood up and loudly shouted "ALLAH IS GREAT" and then when people got mad said that I consider allah the same thing as life, and I meant "Life is great", then no one would be willing to acknowledge that as a valid argument.

Your entire argument up until I called you out on it consisted of "God exists, Thomas Aquinas had a proof for it, so accept what I'm saying.", not "A supernatural event created the universe, we should consider it the equivalent of God, Thomas Aquinas has an explanation that works for this."

Regardless of where this goes, you're still wrong because Einstein was a spinozist, and neither believed in a metaphysical "god" as an explanation for the origin of the universe, nor in a physical/personal "God" like Christianity did.
#490 - to be honest rule number 4 would be awesome 09/27/2014 on rename anonymous 9/26 -1
#86 - quiet down peasant 09/27/2014 on (untitled) 0
Show:
Sort by:
Order:

items

Total unique items point value: 2050 / Total items point value: 2150

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Per page:
Order:
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#2 - rainbowtacos (04/29/2012) [-]
**rainbowtacos rolled a random image posted in comment #4 at i see what you did there star wars ** more penis
User avatar #1 - rainbowtacos (03/16/2012) [-]
penis
 Friends (0)