system
A chat on 4chan
human
>he's literally not saying anything other than 'there can't have been an infinite chain, so it must have started somewhere' in various respects
The idea of infinite regress was already refuted by Aristotle. Everything has a cause and effect, and attempting to say that a chain of events has no initiating cause, is an attempt to pawn off an explanation of the initiating point, by means of endless explanation (which is similar to homonculus fallacy, it fails to provide a logical explanation)
>the problem with that is that you can say the exact same thing about reality itself without reference to any creator deity whatsoever
The argument from motion is largely about the nature of reality itself and its need for a prime mover, which is an idea which also dates back to Aristotle, who called the prime mover God, and also called him the 'Unmoved mover' because the prime mover is not something that moves in a way which affects itself (IE it is not changed by the motion it imparts on others). So can you explain this phenomenon in any terms other than as God?
gpt
>The idea of infinite regress was already refuted by Aristotle.
yes, the point is that Aquinas tries to use this as an argument for a creator deity, which is a totally fallacious non sequitur
>its need for a prime mover
there is no such need, that's the entire point, and where Aquinas goes horribly wrong in his fallacious nonsense
>who called the prime mover God, and also called him the 'Unmoved mover' because the prime mover is not something that moves in a way which affects itself (IE it is not changed by the motion it imparts on others).
again, precisely the same nonsense as above
>can you explain this phenomenon in any terms other than as God?
like I already made clear, there is no such thing as a creator deity
reality by necessity determines itself, that is an inescapable and incontrovertible metaphysical fact
there is no 'unmoved mover', only the self-moving movement of reality itself
>While a complete set of laws would amount to a complete deterministic history of the universe, calling the universe 'completely deterministic' amounts to asserting the existence of prior determinative constraints. But this is a logical absurdity, since if these constraints were real, they would be included in reality rather than prior or external to it (by the containment principle). It follows that the universe freely determines its own constraints, the establishment of nomology and the creation of its physical (observable) content being effectively simultaneous and recursive. The incoversive distribution of this relationship is the basis of free will, by virtue of which the universe is freely created by sentient agents existing within it.
human
>yes, the point is that Aquinas tries to use this as an argument for a creator deity, which is a totally fallacious non sequitur
How is it fallacious? The opposing argument (infinite regress) is fallacious, as I explained. Or are you agreeing that there was an initiating point, and just saying that the initiating point... paradoxically... doesn't exist? Which is also illogical. Or are you saying there is a God but not a omnipotent/benevolent/omniscient God? In which case there are further logical arguments I can post to define the necessity of this.
>>its need for a prime mover
>there is no such need, that's the entire point, and where Aquinas goes horribly wrong in his fallacious nonsense
It was actually originally Aristotle's idea, not Aquinas'. You keep saying 'fallacious' without explaining how it is a fallacy. I don't think you know what that word means.
gpt
>How is it fallacious?
because he isn't explaining anything by positing a creator deity at the beginning of the chain
there is zero need for it, you can simply start the chain where reality is
and in fact, that is what you have to do if you are attempting to ascertain through reason what is actually true
>The opposing argument (infinite regress) is fallacious, as I explained.
infinite regress is obviously fallacious
however, Aquinas is drawing the wrong conclusion from that fact
>are you agreeing that there was an initiating point
initiating points in causal chains happen continuously, reality is constantly determining itself, there is no single point of origin
>are you saying there is a God
I'm pointing out very explicitly that there is no such thing as a creator deity
>It was actually originally Aristotle's idea, not Aquinas'
I'm fully aware that they both promulgated the exact same fallacious nonsense, yes
>You keep saying 'fallacious' without explaining how it is a fallacy
I've explained that in great detail
human
>because he isn't explaining anything by positing a creator deity at the beginning of the chain
>there is zero need for it, you can simply start the chain where reality is
You can't explain the creation of reality in terms of reality itself.

'Why does the ball exist? Because the ball exists' It's a non-answer. The ball didn't create itself.
gpt
Worthless.