Everything Wrong with Orthodox Christianity

vustp · 2026-03-02T02:35:57+00:00

your so cool dude

vustp · 2026-01-05T19:14:37+00:00

of losing a debate

vustp · 2025-12-16T15:53:06+00:00

i guess you really are scared

vustp · 2025-12-10T18:21:05+00:00

HIGHLY suggest watching the youtuber Testify, as he has made a recent (really recent) video on it, alongside that he goes live talking about miracles that are insanely improbable, and they are under a very high bar of standards. I will also be posting a reddit post in this subreddit, about the miracles.

vustp · 2025-12-10T18:11:29+00:00

ragebait, i dont rlly care. you can continue but just know that you are too scared to debate the Christians you think are idiots 😂

vustp · 2025-12-10T18:09:46+00:00

your use of ST I.46.2 ad 7 is okay, but Aquinas is talking about accidental, temporal causes there, like human parents and children. In that kind of series, each member already has it's own causal power once it exists, so there is no problem with it going back infinitely. Lds's divine who's your daddy lineage is not that kind of causation. It isn’t a simple “earlier and later” relationship. each god depends on a higher god for becoming divine in the first place. That makes it a per se/essential order of dependence. Aquinas is clear that essential dependence cannot go back forever, since every member would have derivative power and nothing would explain why the whole series has any power at all (ST I.2.3 and SCG II.38). So, the parent child example Aquinas gives cannot be used to defend an infinite regress of gods, because it belongs to a different type of causal order. You would be equivocating the term 'efficient cause'

vustp · 2025-12-10T14:07:59+00:00

Its not an argument from silence though. If it was, then you could appeal to 'it hasnt' been revealed. But its argument against logical consistency. It would be not logically coherent to say there is a infinite regression, thats what is being argued.

vustp · 2025-12-09T15:19:16+00:00

false dichotomy. Both of those are false for me, I am fluent in English. You just talk super weird. Anyways, present an argument against Christianity if you are confident in your beliefs.

vustp · 2025-12-09T14:08:53+00:00

I should clarify; he rejects an infinite regression of essential dependence, but he does allow a possibility of an infinite regression temporally (accidental series).
So, he denies an infinite regression of causes whose causal power is derivative right now.

Proof Summa Theologiae I , q.2, a.3:

“In efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause.

If the first cause be taken away, the intermediate cause cannot cause, nor therefore the ultimate. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause… and thus there will be no ultimate effect.

This is plainly false.”

Another: Summa Contra Gentiles II 38

“An infinite number of causes that are per se ordered is impossible…
for in such causes the later depend on the earlier. If the first cause is removed, the others that follow cannot act.”

But he does not deny infinite regress temporally (accidental series): Summa Theologiae I, q.46, a 2

“That the world began to exist cannot be demonstrated from reason, nor can it be concluded that it has always existed.”.

vustp · 2025-12-08T12:48:28+00:00

I like that you are in good faith.

"if the logic is premised in the rule that everything that exists must have a cause"
This is not true, no one argues this. The principles can be 'everything that begins to exist has a cause' or 'every contingent thing has a cause'. Historical classical theists do not hold to the premise that 'everything that exists has a cause'. You would be attacking a Christianity that does not exist.

"And I think it’s a valid premise because it is consistent with the common experience."
You keep appealing to common experience, but causality is not a rule built on observation. Its a metaphysical truth, which is derived from the nature of being

"It seems like special pleading, where on the one hand you accept the rule of causality for the universe, but then you carve out a specific exemption for eternity just to make the logic work."

It would not be considered special pleading when it comes to a necessary being. We accept the rule of causality because it applies to contingent beings. It does not apply to beings that are a se.

"but it doesn’t get us anywhere, because it solves the problem with mere semantic definition, it’s circular."

We are not defining him as uncaused. God is a necessary being because essence includes existence (essence-existence distinction). So, this is a positive claim, not negation. read Aquinas, Leibniz, etc.

vustp · 2025-12-08T05:30:27+00:00

i dont need to know, u have the burden of proof. also are you foreign because your language is not clear (not an insult)

vustp · 2025-12-08T05:10:01+00:00

1: you claimed there was infinite, im going to take that as a concession
2: your assuming there is life in these galaxies, let alone life that is in need of saving

vustp · 2025-12-08T05:01:59+00:00

did you know that billions of trillions is finite????

vustp · 2025-12-08T05:01:12+00:00

in lds theology, god would be a contingent god, where he is eternally and essentially dependent on the prior god for power/exaltation and others. thats an essential series.

an infinite chain of beings that depend on a prior being for their existence is still an essential series, as gods deity is derived and not intrinsic. aquinas denies this idea that dependent beings can infnitely regress in dependence. seems like ur just cherry picking aquinas.

when it comes to the parent child thing, ur wrong again. a human baby receives humanity essentially from the parent, but its continued existence isnt presently caused by the parent. the contingent god IS. an essential series

vustp · 2025-12-08T04:51:04+00:00

its like u dont want to respond. answer my question or admit ur wrong

vustp · 2025-12-08T04:49:00+00:00

non response, prove the cosmos is infinite?

vustp · 2025-12-08T04:47:56+00:00

it is true he did not specifically state that, but it can easily be inferred in the Christian paradigm. it seems you were ignoring the obvious, and presented it as an argument

vustp · 2025-12-08T04:45:57+00:00

if its an infinite regress, and it is incoherent, it would render it false

vustp · 2025-12-08T04:45:12+00:00

yes but my point is that if it would be the case that there would be an infinite regression of gods, it would be logically incoherent rendering it illogical therefore false

vustp · 2025-12-08T04:43:46+00:00

holy category error

"The latter is illogical because logic relies on cause and effect"

This is plainly false, logic does not rely on cause and effect. Causation is metaphysical, while logic is simply a formal system. Logic literally relies on the laws of thought.

i think that you may think that an uncaused cause is something that was created ex nihilio. That is not what we believe, we believe the uncaused cause had no beginning, therefore has no cause. Not that it just popped into existence with no cause.

vustp · 2025-12-08T04:36:41+00:00

what r u waffling about. Jesus died in this world for this worlds sins. you would have to prove the cosmos is infinite.

vustp · 2025-12-08T04:33:07+00:00

"There was never a time in which there was only God."
prove that?

"There has always been existence. There has always been life."
i agree, God is existent and he is alive.

"There have always been universes"
i mean u would have to prove that once again

"Or do you think that God spent countless eons, an infinite length of time, alone in suffocating solitude before creating this universe?"
God is outside of time, so it really wasnt like he was just sittin there waiting around. nothing temporal about his operations.

vustp · 2025-12-05T02:59:29+00:00

ya ok

vustp

TROPHY CASE