1. Our senses prove that some things are in motion.
a. Our senses are electrical interpretations of external stimuli. However, these stimuli aren’t necessarily from this universe. Potentially, these could be from a universe in which there are no things in motion that could simulate brains.
b. “Prove” is a strong concept, only possible in Math and Law. See above for one instance.
2. Things move when potential motion becomes actual motion.
a. Yes, hello physics 101.
3. Only an actual motion can convert a potential motion into an actual motion.
a. Notice the use of the word “only”.
4. Nothing can be at once in both actuality and potentiality in the same respect (i.e., if both actual and potential, it is actual in one respect and potential in another).
a. Not true. A marble rolling on a table has the potential energy of the fall off of the table and the actual energy of rolling.
5. Therefore nothing can move itself.
a. Notice “nothing can move itself”
b. Humans and other animals move themselves.
6. Therefore each thing in motion is moved by something else.
7. The sequence of motion cannot extend ad infinitum.
8. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.
a. The double bind: The conclusion violates the premises, meaning that it is not the correct conclusion: This first mover either moved itself, but “nothing can move itself,” or it was moved by something else, but the sequence of motion cannot extend ad infinitum. Therefore, there must be a prime first mover. This prime first mover either moved itself, but “nothing can move itself,” or it was moved by something else, but “the sequence of motion cannot extend ad infinitum.” This can be repeated ad infinitum, but the man himself says that sequences cannot exist ad infinitum.
b. There is no reason to believe that whatever this first mover thing is a god. It could literally be anything else, a cupcake, Bruce Lee’s kick, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, etc.
My two cents.
Christianity is the dominant religion? It wasn’t always.
I am an atheist, if it wasn’t obvious enough from everything previously posted. I lack belief in all supernatural phenomena, including ghosts, spirits, psychic powers, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Ra, Thor, Yahweh, etc. As much as I’ve dreamed of having telekinesis or telepathy, I know that there is no evidence for such things. That being said, I must still be agnostic because even though no evidence has been gathered in support any supernatural thing ever, there is still the possibility that tomorrow Zeus will make a public appearance and command lightning or some crazy shit, even if the likelihood of this ever occurring is extremely low.
I am of the firm belief I am confident that science demonstrates that:
- The universe does not require a god/supernatural force to create atoms, molecules, stars, planets, and ultimately life, as these are beautifully explained by a conglomerate of ever-expanding theories.
- That a god/supernatural force ultimately creates as many or more problems then it solves.
So I am an agnostic atheist who thinks that science is way to truth. What are you?
So the context of this story: Basically, our first semester of religion was based off of the overarching theme of “Is faith a noun or a verb (to Catholics)?” I tended to use the argument that since noun and verb apply to parts of speech, the actual word “faith” can only be considered a noun, and that a better question would be if (Catholic’s) faith was more passive or active. It’s now the second semester and I now have no one from my original class (even a different teacher!), and so we’re quickly summarizing some terms and ideas from last semester (including faith).
So, a couple of days ago, we were asked to define various terms in small groups. The word our group was assigned was faith. Since everyone else in the group seemed to have forgotten it, even though they’re all Christians, and it seems counter intuitive that I’m more knowledgeable about things in the class I pay the least attention in then they are, but whatever. So we are called on to give our definitions and so we have several definitions for each term on the projector, some of them clearly not what you would find in the dictionary such as:
Faith: v. A relationship with God. (Source: ???)
What have they been smoking? So to the guy in front of me who seems to totally agree with faith being verb I ask “How could faith be remotely considered a verb?” and he replies:
"Herp,derp. People can define words however they want. Herpa derpa." -Him
"So I can say ‘Hey, I faithed today,’ or ‘You should faith Zeus,’ and still have it be be grammatically correct?" -Me
"Obviously not. That’s improper grammar…" says he.
"Then how the hell can it be a verb?!" I exclaim.
"Well, faith is undefinable." he alleges.
"So if I look it up in the dictionary, the entry’ll read: Faith: v. undefinable?” I retaliate.
So he spews this bullshit: “Well, if you’re right why doesn’t she [our teacher] tell us to come up with definitions?”
At this point, my only response is:
Wow, just wow.
How can anyone who sees the vastness, the beauty, the chaos of these cosmos, how can they ever believe it was created solely for them, solely with them in mind? How could someone have the arrogance, the audacity? This universe was not created for YOU or ME or ANYONE. It arose through the chaos and balance of the expansion of a singularity, and that is the source of its beauty. We don’t need a deity to explain this. We need solely be awed by its majesty, and not be so selfish that we think it was made just for us.