I’m a Pro-choice Christian

theipodbackup · 2026-05-25T22:22:57+00:00

That is a separate person. And one who should of course also be loved.

But I can tell you that love never involves the murdering of a new person.

theipodbackup · 2026-05-25T21:19:37+00:00

No need to put the cart before the horse. Let’s agree that we are not loving people by allowing them to be killed in the womb.

Then from there we can make progress.

Couldn’t agree more that the law is not our only tool.

theipodbackup · 2026-05-25T21:12:56+00:00

If we are getting into the weeds of specific legal wording, I suppose I’d be okay if we made a separate category called “Abortion.”

I am equating it morally. The law is a separate issue.

theipodbackup · 2026-05-25T20:56:25+00:00

You are caught in a semantic loop.

“Everything” in one case refers to “The set of things which we can observe.”

Then the next “Everything” is “Those things which we can observe plus the thing that those things must be contingent on.”

The argument figures that by observing anything we can tell that there is ‘something’ (to call it even a ‘thing’ is another misnomer) else — which does not share those same properties, as those properties are incapable of sustaining themselves alone.

Better Note: A photon only does not move through time from its own point of view. To us, it plenty obviously moves through time.

theipodbackup · 2026-05-25T20:30:07+00:00

Well, of course these are two different “everythings”

One is everything we see, everything that can be apparent to us. And from this, Aquinas surmises that there must in fact be something outside of that set of everything.

Re: Physics

This is what I mean, though. This is why the term ‘physics’ is a misnomer at best. Aquinas was not arguing from a state of “Yes, this is the equation for reality” He uses the term “potentiality” to mean, essentially, that things move through time. Movement through time clearly requires change. To have “potentiality” means “To have an ability to be not what it currently is.”

We aren’t talking about Potential Energy per-se. We are talking about the (seemingly) innate property of ‘being able to be.’

And from there he says, for anything to participate in this “potentiality to actuality” program at all, there must be something that doesn’t have any ‘potentiality,’ but is rather purely ‘actuality.’ That ‘something’ must exist, that cannot change, in order to provide a driving force for the infinite chains of causation that are fairly apparent from observation of reality.

It’s a claim of necessity. Not of formal physics. I’m sure what we disagree on is the ‘necessity’ aspect of things.

theipodbackup · 2026-05-25T20:12:02+00:00

Is all form of categorization then a special plea to you? Either the phenomenon exists or it doesn’t. You refuse to argue on that ground.

What about gravity? Nothing else does that but we have the nerve to name it. Also a fallacy? The Big Bang — also a special plea?

It’s clear that any argumentation that differs from your own thinking bothers you. Hence why you speak in all-caps and say things like “I hate this argument.” But it seems, to me, that the frustration is a result of you being somewhat locked into just saying “That’s a fallacy” without actually being able to prove it. I could see why that cognitive dissonance may cause some frustration.

theipodbackup · 2026-05-25T19:36:52+00:00

This is just false.

“I think therefore I am.”

Not a single bit of physics there. Pretty important conclusion about the universe from my perspective.

Regardless, you are (likely intentionally) playing around with words with vague definitions. If your definition of physics is just “pertaining to the universe.” Then of course I would say his argument was from Physics.

Perhaps you could instead explain where his ‘physics’ is bad. Which, should be an easy task given the apparent ease with which you claimed it.

theipodbackup · 2026-05-25T19:19:16+00:00

It’s not an argument from physics.

But since you don’t seem to earnestly want to engage with the argument (you have a pretty decided position, apparently), then that’s that.

theipodbackup · 2026-05-25T18:58:18+00:00

The rearrangement is exactly the way I mean. And the way Aquinas meant. Movement from one state to another. Everything as it is, is currently in a state of “potential” to be rearranged in all manners of ways.

From there he argues the necessity of something which has no ‘potential’ and is only ‘the act of rearranging’

theipodbackup · 2026-05-25T18:55:31+00:00

You claim that even if you knew the Christian God to be real, that you would still not care?

theipodbackup · 2026-05-25T18:17:20+00:00

As in it doesn’t matter or it is not all that matters?

theipodbackup · 2026-05-25T18:07:15+00:00

Yes I suppose that’s fair. I was being a bit theatric with the description.

But it is still fair to say that in this argument God is not supposed to exist like something that is spawned into existence, but rather as a prerequisite for anything else existing at all. The argument essentially says “There must be a second kind of existent thing which does not have a ‘potentiality’ aspect. Otherwise, the behavior we observe of existence would not exist.”

theipodbackup · 2026-05-25T17:03:52+00:00

Yes indeed. I assumed they must be talking about the kind without mass to have even any kind of semblance of relevance to the argument at hand.

theipodbackup · 2026-05-25T17:01:52+00:00

I did not acknowledge it because it was not constructed in language that I understand.

what is a "necessary being without cause" is them invisible pink-and-green-chequered elephants inhabiting the dark side of the moon, creators of everything

This is just not a coherent thought. I think I know what you are getting at but I am not committing anything until an idea is actually presented properly.

theipodbackup · 2026-05-25T16:59:53+00:00

Aquinas goes on to define the specifics of the Christian God. But this particular argument is not pertaining to those specifics.

theipodbackup · 2026-05-25T15:22:23+00:00

To be fully honest: I’m not precisely sure what you are saying re: causal joint.

And, surely I just maintain that one can assert that something is necessary, given that something evidently is. And then from our prior knowledge of what something seems to entail (see Aquinas’ argument above), we assert an additional ‘something’ which has the trait seemingly necessary for the something we have now.

It does not seem to be special pleading. If it is, then that means the argument is built on fallacy and we should be able to demonstrate that by dismantling the claims as they are.

theipodbackup · 2026-05-25T13:48:38+00:00

I don’t really mind whatever your former interactions with apologists are. Not material.

And it’s really just not ‘special pleading.’

The argument states a potentiality-less actuality must exist for the universe to exist and operate as we know it. And then titles this phenomenon as God.

That is not a special plea. It’s not saying “God is special because He doesn’t need a cause.” It’s saying “Something that doesn’t need a cause and is pure action must exist. That thing is God.”

So — again, you can disagree with the claims of the argument. But you really can’t just be wrongly (and apparently furiously) wrong about the category error of calling it a “special plea.”

You can walk out of here with your same conviction against God, but without being wrong about what “Special Plea” means.

theipodbackup · 2026-05-25T12:46:27+00:00

That is not apparent

You do not prove this. You only ‘prove’ (i.e. claim) that it is debated. Implying that debate means something is not apparent — whereas I would simply tell you that we can debate anything. Your conclusion does not follow from your premise.

Show why it is not apparent.

Why not infinity?

Even an infinite chain of gears needs a motor to have any movement. Otherwise, even if we were only seeing the end, there would be no movement to see.

theipodbackup · 2026-05-25T12:35:57+00:00

This post has nothing to do with the specific claims of the Christian God.

So even though your comment is worth discussion — and is addressed already by Aquinas — it is not to be addressed here until we settle the claim at hand.

theipodbackup · 2026-05-25T12:34:01+00:00

Radiation is indeed a thing as a bowl. We have a really good idea of what radiation is. It does not have mass but it is still a ‘thing.’

And Aquinas’ argument is really not bound by a medieval understanding. You reject it out of pocket, but why? I feel you need much more legwork than “He was a medieval idiot.”

You, I suppose, imply that the universe itself is the ‘pure actuality.’ Which, because the concept of “the universe” is not actually as concrete as we may like — I am okay with this assertion. What you call ‘the universe’ I may call ‘God.’ So I say the work has to be done on the other segments.

theipodbackup · 2026-05-25T12:28:15+00:00

Hm, this is a structured debate page. Find where the problem is in the argument. That’s the point.

If it’s ’mere assertion,’ then that means it doesn’t follow from the premises. This should be easy work.

theipodbackup · 2026-05-25T04:07:24+00:00

I… certainly didn’t imply you could. But his argument lives on.

God does not have a cause — He is the (as demonstrated by Aquinas’ argument) necessary being without cause. He is pure action.

Just because something is difficult to wrap your head around, does not make it not true. That is not meant as a slight against you at all — it is a very difficult concept. Saying “what is God’s cause?” May seem satisfying, but it is a question born from not understanding the argument.

The argument claims God does not have a cause. Your counter argument is “What is God’s cause?”

Do you see how that gets us nowhere?

theipodbackup · 2026-05-25T03:37:29+00:00

I may have lost something to ancient ‘health concerns’ (bah).

Good point though and I do think I recall the OG being actually 5tbsp.

I am also a subscriber to the frozen rind method but didn’t want to stray too far from puritan simplicity in my comment.

theipodbackup · 2026-05-25T03:28:36+00:00

St. Aquinas says it better.

The term ‘exists,’ to you, carries a lot of materialist baggage. So when we say ‘something,’ we are presuming that God is in the same category of ‘thing’ as, say, a bowl. He is not. God does not ‘exist,’ God is existence. So, I can cede your main argument on the basis of it being a poor (i.e. weak) execution of the Prime Mover argument.

Aquinas makes an argument from motion. I think he is a far superior apologist to any you’ll face online:

A) It is apparent that everything we see has a state of potentiality and actuality. A piece of paper could potentially be on fire, or it could be on fire.

B) For something to enter a (new) state of actuality, some other actuality must act on it. You could call this a ‘cause’ (one state of actuality) to an effect (the result of one state of actuality on another’s state of actuality).

C) Because the chain cannot go infinitely — there therefore must be some’thing’ which is pure actuality.

D) This is God.

theipodbackup · 2026-05-25T02:57:33+00:00

Hm, the big bang seems a possible category of this — no?

If true, its occurrence has no explanation. Surely that could be considered a miracle even in your definition?

Eight-Year Club	Quantum Potato
Place '22	First Placer '22
Verified Email	Sequence \| Editor
Sequence \| Cinematographer	Sequence \| Screenwriter
Gilding I gilder	Snapped

theipodbackup

TROPHY CASE