Hard determinism is a self defeating idealogy

>But how can something gain the trait of necessary being from soley contingent causes?
In the same way your supposed God/first cause did.

who cares nigger

>abrahamitic
go back to contemplating your navel

And this is why Catholicism is just a fedora with a cross attached.
>It takes at least 50 in tell of gents to understand the truly sophisticated doctrine of this fat Italian faggot

>Hard determinism = Causality = there must be a first cause = God is real = free will is rea
No

Not an argument

>there must be a cause
>god is real
This is a big jump.

Yes, god is real.

...But they're all gods from some retarded pagan culture where the universe was sharted out of the ass of a turtle. Definitely not the christian god.

Well, it looks as if the Universe and God are one and the same

>the bible
>implying the Bivle is an authoritative source
Not everyone believes in Jewish fables.

Pantheism is wrong. If it were correct then God would not be God as the logical conclusion of pantheism is that God is constantly changing and is finite in His nature. If He were constantly changing then he would not be completely perfect and thus not God.

Because You're a brainlet and You can't read.

>not necessarily (the casual chain might extend into infinity)
No It might not.
You people are actually deranged.

Attached: IMG_3614.gif (480x360, 404K)

Hold up, bout' to just extend this causal chain into infinity.

Attached: holdup.jpg (800x600, 77K)

God is real =/= Christian God is real

The Christian idea of God follows from God.

See: The Trinity

Catholics deliberately make bad arguments to destroy Christianity because they are Atheists.

Yes, that is were faith comes in, although it demonstrates that it is not contrary to reason.

start using the transcendental argument, the 5 ways only prove the monad

>Catholics are the real atheists
>atheists are the real Protestants
>Protestants are the real Jews

lol

god is real = everything in the bible is true?

Try coming up with actual arguments and defending more than one of the three flawed points I brought up.

>there must be a first cause = God is real
Not the Ambrahamic God though. First Cause could be and in fact most probably is completely different.

Infinite regress is literally a logical fallacy what more needs to be said folks

>eternal timeless and unchanging god doesn't eternally create
>not logical fallacy

Yep

to suggest otherwise is to misunderstand the Catholic understanding of God

Hey catholicuck, I have a good question for you does good know what the tip of my sweaty dirty cock tastes like right know? And I mean does glob KNOW how it feels to put my shaft into his mouth?

Let's say hard determinism applies. Let's also say that some entity started the chain of events.
Even if you call that entity "God", the "hard determinism being true" part would still falsify all of the Bible passages describing divine intervention. Now that 50% of the Bible is false, why would the rest apply?

I mean...the OP isn't really putting forth a lot either.
OP made a series of assertions that they have basically refused to support in any way outside of "learn to read" or "that's not an argument". Every statement is a greater and greater leap and are hardly inferrable from the last or the next.
Putting equal signs next to 2 or more premises does not an argument make.
At the very least OP ought to be directing folks to the questions and articles in the Summa that they're making these claims from.
For someone who's shut down argument has been "read", I would have thought would want to be more constructive.

>If the universe is cyclical
Niqqa just read Aristotle's Metaphysics, Book II before spouting this bullshit
>or event completely without sentience is far more likely than a powerful god
Nope, both options are equally problematic
>And a specific abrahamitic god is not even worth talking about in this context.
Aquinas never gave arguments for the existence of a personal God, he knew that it was a matter of faith

>How did a necessary eternal being become a necessar eternal being?
If there was an answer to said question, then said being wouldn't be an eternal being.

>Causality = there must be a first cause = God is real

That's two non-sequiturs for the price of one

To expand on OPs original point, it's impssible to create a consistent ontology from determinism. If everything that exist, exists becuase a prior cause, then that leads to an infinite regress, which is impossible as showed by my previous argument, or it could be circular, but then how did this circle begin to exist? A circular universe would be a necessary being, meaning that hard determinism is false. No wonder we have discovered that the universe is based on probability.

Attached: 1568302807276.jpg (750x703, 99K)

>based on probability
Probability is a placeholder variable we use for what is quantifiable and calculable, but isn’t due to our limited ability to calculate and quantify said variable. Just because we can’t calculate the “probability” of something happen to a totality gives a 100% accurate result all of the time, doesn’t mean we can’t.

"In quantum mechanics, however, indeterminacy is of a much more fundamental nature, having nothing to do with errors or disturbance." Wikipedia

Very few scientists still believe in the Copenaghen interpretation nowadays

What's the most popular interpretation?
t. Physics pleb

> It remains one of the most commonly taught interpretations of quantum mechanics.[1][2]
What are you on.

It's a necessity to believe in causality because of the unanimously accepted philosophical principle of sufficient reason.
Everything must have a cause. It's not determinism since something can have God as cause, so, everything doesn't have necessarily a natural cause.
Causality is irrefutable and isn't dependent on a deterministic ideology.

The First can't be limited, by what would He be limited since He is first and there is nothing with Him ? There can't be nothing with first, that's again in link with the principle of sufficient reason. The First, the infinite/unlimited, is God.

Casuality of the existence implies there must be a First. This First can only be unlimited, that's the definition of God (Perfection).

It's symbolic.

There is some truth, by always arguing over it, they make possible doubt for the intellectually limited people. They make people seek proof of the infinite while there can't be proofs of the infinite, they destroy the mystery with reason. Scholasticism was a mistake.

How is it different ? We only say about the divine essence that it's infinite.

The infinite has no part in the finite.

Yes, hard determinism is dumb, it's a materialistic ideology.

Infinite regress is dumb, see above what I said. It forget God is infinite and is not a thing. There must be a cause for every THING (limited by nature). But we don't need to find a cause to the First, infinite by "definition", in fact it would be an absurdity. There must be a first because of the principle of sufficient reason. And only God is above it. By these reasoning atheist again shows they know nothing about the God they are trying to debunk. I agree, you can debunk papism or protestantism, but you know nothing about God.

Attached: 56e25826050f55d2eabb7ce7dd17b563bf94a628752dbe28d084142947f7cbab.jpg (465x700, 109K)

Why are aquinas posters universally retarded?
This garbage post doesn't even begin to resemble a valid argument, let alone a sound one.

>The first cause must be god
is this what mental retardation looks like

See (I had to make OP's work)

There is no logical necessity of a first cause if there's no logical necessity of non-contradiction. There's no logical necessity of a first cause if there's no logical necessity of matter not being able to be created or destroyed.

God in whichever its form may be as an ascientific entity above reason, measure, time? We're admitting Creative Mode into the real world? then why the hell can't we admit infinite regress and recursion? Most buddhist branches accept the universe as an infinite uncreated chain of cause an effect and that never gave them any trouble

there's a logical necessity of non-contradiction, or else there can be no thoughts. Don't throw this principle away just because there is an appearance of contradictions in some orders of existence. This principle is a logical necessity.
>There's no logical necessity of a first cause if there's no logical necessity of matter not being able to be created or destroyed.
Matter have an autonomy in it's order. I didn't defend what you say, I don't see your point.

God has no form, He has no limit. We can't admit infinite regress in the sense we can't admit a cause to God, that's what I meant. But indeed the universe being created before the creation of Time or of causality, only by going above causality, it is possible to find a way out of it. So the creation can be considered as an indefinite chain of causality in it's order. Yet the real cause and the "support" of it, is God.

wow, you're retarded

>There is some truth, by always arguing over it, they make possible doubt for the intellectually limited people. They make people seek proof of the infinite while there can't be proofs of the infinite, they destroy the mystery with reason. Scholasticism was a mistake.

My point being that it is very bad "reason", antithetic to Plato et al.

Can you develop please ?