Hard determinism

Actual pseud response. Post an argument instead of being a passive aggressive bitch. If u mean the aristotle version vs aquinas version I agree aquinas fucked it up. i agree that there doesnt need to be a first cause
you're taking a materialist stance still. im telling you that since immaterial truths are real, the immaterial is real

i'm this guy you're right i should have tagged some books

The immaterial is real: Kant - The Only Possible Argument in Support of a Demonstration of the Existence of God

other recs: Physics and Philosophy, Transcendental argument

>since immaterial truths are real, the immaterial is real
Ah so, The Cause of the first action proves that there is an immaterial Thing. I see...

Based, thank you user I'm surprised at how quickly you have thrown a wrench in this. It is making me depressed believing in it

>Kant - The Only Possible Argument in Support of a Demonstration of the Existence of God
>other recs: Physics and Philosophy, Transcendental argument

I'm a little worried ordering any of these because I'm pretty brainlet with philosophy... Mostly have trouble sitting through it. I will look up summaries and annotations for these

No, I'm using the transcendental argument to prove that there is the immaterial

>Physics and Philosophy
Heisenberg?

yep
you're not a brainlet user :)

>there doesn't need to be a first cause
Causa prima is, just as well as causa sui, a contradictio in adjecto. A first cause is just as inconceivable as the point at which Space ends or the moment when Time first began. For every cause is a change, which necessarily obliges us to ask for the preceding change that brought it about, and so on in infinitum, in infinitum! Even a first state of Matter, from which, as it has ceased to be, all following states could have proceeded, is inconceivable. For if this state had in itself been the cause of the following ones, they must like wise have existed from all eternity, and the actual state existing at the present moment could not have only just now come into being. If, on the other hand, that first state only began to be causal at some given period, some thing or other must have changed it, for its inactivity to have ceased; but then something must have occurred, some change must have taken place; and this again obliges us to ask for its cause i.e. a change which preceded it; and here we are once more on the causal ladder, up which we are whipped step by step, higher and higher, in infinitum, in infinitum! The causal law therefore is not so accommodating as to let itself be used like a hired cab, which we dismiss when we have reached our destination.

Ooooh :)

I'm.. a.. brainlord!

Do I understand Nietzsche right in that he radicalizes Kant in the sense that both thinking of the world as determined or free are categories of the understanding, with ultimately no claim to truth, as reason can never provide such, and thus only seeing the world as it is, a pre-reasonable spontaneous natural cycle of recurrence, which is neither free nor determined, yields true insight?

OP with a follow up
- is there anyone who argued that immaterial sparked the universe but after that the course of things is predetermined?

simulation theory

Oh but uh is there like a non-reddit version for grown ups?

only other one i can think of is calvinism

iupui.edu/~arisbe/menu/library/bycsp/necessity/Necessity.htm

Read Peirce, definitely not the predetermined part but since you are a pea brain I feel like that statement was ambiguous enough to let pass.

Attached: 46ecd4fc2697de1c1160018a27dfeb8d4504dcb8d6a38d2e2043b4ead9ea6925_1.jpg.jpg (300x292, 34K)

Absolutely based and redpilled.

Sorry I didn't waste $30,000 on a philosophical degree from Michigan State or something!!!!!

You called yourself pee Brian from the start so don't get tigged. I was excusing an ambiguous recommendation with your, ignorance which is a good thing for you to admit. I didn't even graduate highschool, you are more than capable of learning.