Click to expand
Rank #12885 on CommentsLevel 284 Comments: More Thumbs Than A Hiroshima Survivor
OfflineSend mail to zzitro Block zzitro Invite zzitro to be your friend flag avatar
|Last status update:|| |
|Date Signed Up:||3/16/2012|
|Funnyjunk Career Stats|
|Highest Content Rank:||#14010|
|Highest Comment Rank:||#420|
|Content Thumbs:||81 total, 137 , 56|
|Comment Thumbs:||8904 total, 9700 , 796|
|Content Level Progress:|| 40% (2/5) |
Level 6 Content: New Here → Level 7 Content: New Here
|Comment Level Progress:|| 83% (83/100) |
Level 284 Comments: More Thumbs Than A Hiroshima Survivor → Level 285 Comments: More Thumbs Than A Hiroshima Survivor
|Times Content Favorited:||12 times|
|Total Comments Made:||1292|
latest user's comments
|#77 - News flash Einstein believed that there was a God. Th… [+] (24 new replies)||09/27/2014 on context||+15|
#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.
#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.
#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
#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."
#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.
#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.
#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>.
#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?
#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.
#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|
|#145 - This gave me an erection no homo||09/26/2014 on Tribute to our king||+2|
|#111 - Picture||09/25/2014 on All female staff||-1|
|#9 - Picture||09/25/2014 on I don't want to work||+20|
|#4 - che||09/23/2014 on English level||0|
|#16 - This made me feel scared||09/23/2014 on Thought This Was Pretty Funny||+18|
|#32 - somewhat related...I just really like this gif [+] (1 new reply)||09/22/2014 on confession bear life story||+3|
|#264 - faagit typical greeting, now you are like one of us||09/22/2014 on A 4chan Refugee||+1|
|#37 - It's dangerous to run with machetes||09/20/2014 on Best Prank Ever||0|
|#39 - I think that once you mature a little you will realize that sc… [+] (11 new replies)||09/18/2014 on Absorbed||+40|
#217 - ieatbengay (09/18/2014) [-]
i think it's pretty stupid for a scientist to follow one of the modern religions 100% and have no problems with it. it's ok to believe there was a god, or an afterlife or someone watching over us, but going along with all the stories and metaphors as if they actually happened, knowing that there is no evidence or theories to show how it's possible is retarded. especially for someone interested in a subject that revolves around evidence, hypothesis and testing
#303 - adu (09/18/2014) [-]
And people should stop doing that. It's one of the problems of being a science-supporting evolution-believing Christian apologist. You sometimes get lumped together with the arguments of the fundamentalists and biblical literalists, who will swear up and down that the Earth is no more than 10,000 years old...
#190 - nigeltheoutlaw (09/18/2014) [-]
Science and ridiculous magic like creating matter out of nothing and transmutation, resurrection, world's on turtle's backs, etc are all definitely exclusive. The only things not exclusive to science and religion are the scientifically unfalsifiable (right now at least) claims such as the existence of god(s) or extra-dimensional planes of existence or resurrection. This comment just shows that you either A) don't know much about world religions, or B) don't know much about science. Either way it's fucking retarded
inb4 retarded fedora may may for pointing out the obvious.
#152 - anonymous (09/18/2014) [-]
I attempt to answer this as an atheist.
One of my best friends is both a Christian and a scientist, and is often asked this question - "How can you be religious and a scientist?". Personally, I can completely believe that a man named Jesus existed and spread messages of peace etc. wherever he went. Can I believe he was capable of curing leprosy etc. with a touch? As a scientist, of course not!
Many people would simply say I lack faith, but I believe that without evidence I should not be *expected* to blindly believe anything.
However, it's important to recognise that this is *not* "being a good scientist". A scientist, far more importantly, should be able to change their beliefs to adapt to new evidence. The problem is that in religion faith is far more important than evidence!
If solid evidence that all religion was wrong appeared then I would expect religious scientists to discard (or at least adapt) their beliefs. That doesn't mean they're wrong to hold those beliefs.
|#1 - Thats Iago you casual||09/15/2014 on Jafar reads 50 Shades of Gray||0|
|#25 - Picture||09/04/2014 on Joan Cornella||-1|
|#24 - I kinda just wanted to use this pic [+] (2 new replies)||09/04/2014 on Joan Cornella||+26|
|#18 - I think you forgot SALSA! [+] (2 new replies)||09/03/2014 on Offend everyone||+3|
|#120 - ever heard of a pizza pie [+] (1 new reply)||09/01/2014 on OH NO!!!!!||0|
#121 - anonymous (09/01/2014) [-]
Ever heard of a koala BEAR or a strawBERRY shit dont have to be what its refered to.
|#84 - Actually the Oxford dictionary literally added a new and oppos…||08/21/2014 on Gooby||+1|
|#40 - **zzitro rolled image ** I recognized this within the f…||08/15/2014 on Can't believe I haven't...||0|
|#5573 - **zzitro rolls 416,023** what do I get if they are all 9s||08/14/2014 on Roll for Purple Text||0|
|#9 - Thank you though, I appreciate it||08/04/2014 on god I'm bored||0|
|#4 - More please! [+] (3 new replies)||08/04/2014 on god I'm bored||+2|
|#24 - Picture [+] (2 new replies)||08/01/2014 on gg ;)||+6|
#26 - anonymous (08/01/2014) [-]
|#111 - Thats offensive to autistic people||07/31/2014 on Single Mothers||-1|
|#40 - Am I missing a joke or is this just "interesting" [+] (1 new reply)||07/30/2014 on Where Can I Buy This...||0|
#41 - anonymous (07/30/2014) [-]
not everything has to be funny, you know