>crash course phil and school of life release videos on aquinas only couple of days apart
>crash course even has a second one coming up
ATHEISTS
B T F O
T
F
O
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJvoFf2wCBU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgisehuGOyY
>>987543
>Aquinas and the Cosmological Arguments: Crash Course Philosophy #10
In the same video he includes counterarguments to the arguments, and also, the guy himself is an atheist. But you just wanted another fighting thread, right
He was so fat that he had to be cut out of his room when he died.
>Crash Course
>>987543
>Crash course
>>987581
>>987585
>>987543
>We don't know how things started, therefore god
Wow great philosopher, Atheists BTFO
>>987611
Why don't we just wait until you idiots come up with a more robust theory than "God did it."
So far you have "Pin sized universe blew up."
>>987613
How about "necessary abstract impersonal frame of existence manifested the universe".
>blew up
Fuck this. I'm not having this thread again.
>>987613
What's funny is that Spinoza already took this type of cosmological thinking and brought it to it's logical conclusion. If there is a creating force it might as well be Nature itself. Adding an anthropomorphic deity ontop of it is just an unnecessary addition.
>>987630
Boom!
>>988295
Half the truth is a lie. We didn't invent God by thinking about Him, and we cannot deny God by denying His nature.
>>988299
>God is true because I want him to be
ok whatever.
>>987543
>pop philosophy
That Crash Course video a pretty shit representation of Aquinas.
His arguments aren't meant to be taken separately first of all.
His argument from motion isn't talking about only locomotion. Bishop Barron has a video out that gives a better summary of the argument.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdjjqFSEJ_Y
He gets the argument from first cause wrong as well. Ed Feser has a good explanation.
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.ca/2010/08/edwards-on-infinite-causal-series.html
Aquinas' arguments aren't in favour of the God of Christianity, but rather they try to establish that there is something we call God. To arrive at the Christian God you need to trust in Divine Revelation and Aquinas himself admits this.
Aquinas' other arguments for divine simplicity for example do actually rule out polytheism.
>hurr hurr if everything has a cause than what caused god?
See actus purus
>hacks like john and hank green actually make a living at this shit
>>987543
Fucking horrible videos.
The first ignores that Thomas' project was not unique to him at all - and that came at the tail end of the Dominican movement to use non-Christian Aristotelian sources to support the faith.
He gets the first cosmological argument totally wrong. And the second. And the third. The only one he gets right is the 4th way. He then ignores that the 5 ways are starting point to the whole establishment of the existence of the Christian God where he shows why things like polytheism or deism are barred. He claims that Aquinas is wrong in positing that there can be no infinite regress, when Aquinas posits that it is possible that there is an infinite regress of past moments. If he had got the arguments right instead of building in the idea that a temporal infinite regress was barred in every one he would realize that the infinite regress was not being denied qua infinite regress, but qua the subject matter of the infinite regress in the proofs. The final complaint that " if everything needs x- then God should need it as well and he can't be the first" is stupid because that is not a premise in any of the arguments, only in his misinterpretation of the arguments.
0/10
People who aren't actually trained in a philosophical tradition should not be teaching people about it.
>>987613
>So far you have "Pin sized universe blew up."
We know exactly what was happening 0.0000000000001 seconds after the big bang happened, which is a helluva lot better than your faggot strawman argument.
>>989138
You don't, actually, and if you took a step back and thought about it for a moment, you would realize that such a thing would be impossible.
>>988764
>See some dumbass philosophic idea, completely divorced from physical reality yet somehow designed to help explain physical reality and also it's completely unproven in any way but it helps assuage my inner fears
because learning about the world by thinking at it has SUCH an amazing track record at being correct
>>989152
>You don't, actually, and if you took a step back and thought about it for a moment, you would realize that such a thing would be impossible.
>hurrrrr durrrrr physicists don't know exactly where their models fail and why because I said so
>hurrrrr durrrrr we haven't recreated the exact conditions in colliders
>>989169
Chronic case of modelitis. Fatal even.
The model is not real. It's a model.
>>989190
>The model is not real. It's a model.
People who use this argument typically say this because they're quite simply too stupid to learn the math necessary. Of course you're not wrong per se, it's just pedantic bullshit you pedal because you are ignorant of how physics works.
Every modern thing around you has been built around laws that, when run to their logical conclusion, work in a certain way when you wind the clock backwards. We know enough about electromagnetism to build everything electronic you see but we don't understand electroweak symmetry breaking even though we make predictions with it and verify them? It's weird how literally every observation ever made both on the actual universe corroborates the theory.
You believe what you want to believe because you want to believe it because your mind is too small to accept that it might be another way.
>>989230
Have you, prior to my post, ever heard the term "modelitis"?
It's a logical fallacy where a person believes that the model accurately depicts reality when the reality is unknown.
And the creation of the universe, to you, is an unknown. So no, a model predicting what would happen if you "Big Crunched" everything back to the "Big Bang" is a model that can be seen, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with reality.
>>988764
>His arguments aren't meant to be taken separately first of all.
That's a fucking cop-out. Five weak arguments together is still just five weak arguments.
k, but De Boton and John Green are the biggest fags on earth.
plus de boton is a paedo who believes altar boys like being buggered.
>>989240
Prove the model is wrong then.
How does Aquinas deal with infinite regression?
Oh wait... He doesn't.
>tfw the theists make vague accusations and don't follow up
