C'mon, Devans.

Your comment reminds me of the, "Apart from that bit, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play?" — Frank Apisa

Although that was a good witticism, even if borrowed. Very apt.

I'd sooner take lessons in improving my posture from Quasimodo than take lessons from you or Chris in how to improve my writing. — Frank Apisa

And that one, too! You should write more like this and less like a robot or an angry teen.

All Aquinas showed was a bias toward a very particular brand of religion.

Aristotle had the same argument.

Aristotle was incompetent.

No you go by the axioms used - do you believe the axioms? If you believe the axioms and the logic is sound... In the case of the 5 ways, it is mainly about causality.

I believe it because its based on causality not because it deduces the existence of God. — Devans99

I agree with the criticism brought up by both Christoffer and Frank about the logical leap, or trivial semantics, from a first cause to God. It's not the first time that I've heard that criticism. I first read Bertrand Russell's History of Western Philosophy about ten years ago. And I've spent a heck of a lot of time on philosophy forums.

I have also criticised your argument regarding the ruling out of an infinite regress, as you well know.

Aristotle was incompetent. — whollyrolling

Dude!

"Aristotle (/ˈærɪˌstɒtəl/;[3] Greek: Ἀριστοτέλης Aristotélēs, pronounced [aristotélɛːs]; 384–322 BC)[A] was a philosopher during the Classical period in Ancient Greece, the founder of the Lyceum and the Peripatetic school of philosophy and Aristotelian tradition. Along with his teacher Plato, he is considered the "Father of Western Philosophy"."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle

I agree with the criticism brought up by both Christoffer and Frank about the logical leap, or trivial semantics, from a first cause to God. It is not the first time that I heard that criticism. I first read Bertrand Russell's History of Western Philosophy about ten years ago. — S

That criticism is far enough. I think he should have restricted himself to a 'timeless first cause' in his argument. But he was maybe under social pressure to support the Church.

I have also criticised your argument regarding the ruling out of an infinite regress, as you well know. — S

Aquinas's and my arguments. They are sound arguments. Nothing can exist without a start. I will not go though it again here as I've repeated so many times.

Aristotle was incompetent. — whollyrolling

I get why you'd say that. But I'm mixed on Aristotle. There's a lot he got very wrong, and he is who I had in mind when I said that influential isn't necessarily a good thing. But he did some foundational work on logic, science, and ethics, so he gets my praise for that.

We can deduce that the first cause is timeless. — Devans99

How? Without scientific data, we cannot deduce anything at all. And we don't have any data yet of anything earlier than a few fractions after Big Bang.

And some other attributes such as intelligence and benevolence are probable. — Devans99

In what way? How do you conclude this?

Being extra-dimensional or non-material is likely too — Devans99

How? Because you pulled that probability out of your ass? That's a 94,58% probability of being true. You need to stop using nonsensical statements as you do, that's the foundation for every counter-argument you get in here. But you don't seem to understand this fact.

The simplest arguments are the best. It has stood the test of time (apart from the 4th argument). — Devans99

No, the best arguments are the ones that have the most solid reasoning in their arguments. Otherwise, here's the most simple argument: YOU ARE WRONG, BECAUSE OF REASONS
Simple, short and to the point. Doesn't mean it's a valid deduction though, like the simplicity you refer to.

Aquinas argument stood the test of time because of philosophy history. It was a big turning point in the history of philosophy and is important in order to see how we got where we got. The only ones who ignore everything after are the theists who always return to his causality argument in order to prove some incoherent argument.

Aquinas's and my arguments. They are sound arguments. Nothing can exist without a start. I will not go though it again here as I've repeated so many times. — Devans99

Yes, but repeating doesn't solve the problem.

I'd sooner take lessons in improving my posture from Quasimodo than take lessons from you or Chris in how to improve my writing. — Frank Apisa

I've never proposed taking linguistic lessons from me. But your linguistic skills do not have to be a hunchback in order to be lacking in efficiency. :razz:

"We can deduce that the first cause is timeless.
— Devans99

How? Without scientific data, we cannot deduce anything at all. — Christoffer

All explained here:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5577/was-there-a-first-cause-reviewing-the-five-ways/p1

There is no way for anything to exist without a timeless first cause - time just forms an infinite regress going back forever - which is impossible - you have to have a timeless first cause to kick everything off.

The universe is fine-tuned for life. This seems to requires intelligence. Intelligence beings are benevolent. I have a 2nd argument for benevolence too.

In order to escape the blast from the Big Bang, the first cause has to be non-material or extra dimensional.

Yes, but repeating doesn't solve the problem. — S

I explained my pool table analogy for a regress... if you won't accept that, I'm not sure there is anything that will convince you.

And the criticisms? Oh, that's right. Sorry, I forgot.

What criticisms do you refer?

I explained my pool table analogy for a regress... if you won't accept that, I'm not sure there is anything that will convince you. — Devans99

We don't need a pool table analogy. Take any event and reason backwards using the principle of cause and effect and you can just keep going infinitely. If that's wrong, you haven't reasonably demonstrated it. You just do as I've described, which isn't reasonable.

But we know that infinity has no start. So there is no starting event. And the starting event causes the next event and so on and so forth. Without the start there is nothing. This is why I say I think you believe in magic - an infinite regress is just that magic - it would be a conjuring trick if it existed in reality.

What criticisms do you refer? — Devans99

This is why you get called a troll. It's different to why I have been called a troll. I mock and and can be super aggressive, whereas you feign ignorance to the point of absurdity.

Work that could have come from anyone given the opportunity of education, which was exclusive to children of affluent families. That a guy came up with one or two hits in a sea of misses, doesn't make him the "father of philosophy" in my opinion. That we were all stupid enough to fall for this nonsense for two thousand years doesn't make it intrinsically genius philosophy. There are lots of things we've been duped about.

But we know that infinity has no start. So there is no starting event. And the starting event causes the next event and so on and so forth. Without the start there is nothing. This is why I say I think you believe in magic - an infinite regress is just that magic - it would be a conjuring trick if it existed in reality. — Devans99

Is that a copy and paste? I've already addressed this. Your first two sentences go without saying, and by your third sentence, you jump straight into a fallacious begging the question by assuming a first cause. That's why you're not being reasonable.

Sure but current day knowledge is likely shot through with holes too: infinity, dark matter, set theory, etc... Whatever source you goto, you have problems.

Is that a copy and paste? I've already addressed this. Your first two sentences go without saying, and by your first sentence, you jump straight into a fallacious begging the question by assuming a first cause. That's why you're not being reasonable. — S

Where exactly do I assume a first cause?

Infinity / Eternity looks like this:

{ ..., 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019 }

The ... indicate it has no start.

You quoted before I edited out a typo. I meant to refer to your third sentence: "And the starting event causes the next event and so on and so forth". I'm going to be blunt and insulting by saying that that's a really dumb thing to say in this context. You can't assume a starting event, and you're not working backwards, when we're talking about a regress for crying out loud. The question is whether there is a first cause or it whethet it just keeps going back.

All explained here: — Devans99

Once again, you use yourself as the foundation for your argument.

This is Inception-level of cognitive bias. I'm not sure which level we're at, your original argument has been countered numerous times, your current posts aren't in support of countering those counter-arguments and you are starting to support your non-supportive current counter-arguments with yourself in another thread. Seriously, this is ridiculous.

There is no way for anything to exist without a timeless first cause — Devans99

You have no evidence of that, so no conclusion of any kind can be drawn from that. Period.

time just forms an infinite regress going back forever - which is impossible - you have to have a timeless first cause to kick everything off. — Devans99

You are not a physicist, you also do not care for the physics research we have. And you conclude things that the brightest minds that have ever existed in history wouldn't conclude since they don't have the data required. That's delusional.

The universe is fine-tuned for life. — Devans99

There's no evidence of this, period.

This seems to requires intelligence. Intelligence beings are benevolent. I have a 2nd argument for benevolence too. — Devans99

I assume you have flawed arguments for everything you believe, however, ignorance does not equal valid arguments.

In order to escape the blast from the Big Bang, the first cause has to be non-material or extra dimensional. — Devans99

What the hell are you babbling about? Nonsensical statements proving nothing of anything you put forward.

All of this is just religious rants which have been countered thousands of times on this forum. You have no knowledge in physics and you use an 800 year old philosopher as the foundation for things we have a modern scientific understanding of. It's laughable at best.

I've given you so many counter-arguments to your original argument and you're just running both in circles and so far off track that you're not even in the same playing field.

Think of a finite regress like a pool table:

{ 'cue hits white', 'white hits black', 'black goes in hole' }

Would the black go in the hole if the cue did not hit the white?

No. So if the start element is missing, there is no regress. So there can be no infinite regresses.

Which ancient or modern philosopher did I praise or quite as a basis for an argument?

Who is your favourite?

Let me know if you want to be reasonable. That would require you dealing with the problem of why a regress can't, in theory, just be traced back infinitely, without begging the question by assuming a first cause, or a first start.

You have only asserted that a first cause, or start, is necessary. You have not reasonably demonstrated this.