>And this we call God
So it’s not God you just call “it” God?

>>18458327
This isn't a moral argument, God is evil.

>>18458327
>this chain cannot go on forever
Why not?
>since if it did there would be no explanation for the existence of any being in the chain
This is not a refutation.

P3 is wrong, and P1, P2 and P4 are undemonstrated. Wow, must be the work of some barely literate medieval schizo copying a random Arabic parchment he found.

>>18458508
>>18458828
Masterclass responses. Wow. Atheists are truly sending us their best.

>>18458327
>Muh unmoved mover
>Therefore Jeezuz
Every religion including the Neoplatonist paganism of late antiquity has an unmoved mover, your shitstain religion is no closer to being the truth.

>>18458327
>since no source in the chain could adaqeutly explain the existence of any other being in the chain without itself needing an explanation
This isnt a problem, it continues explaining itself forever and thats fine. It has an answer for every single part of the chain, its your fault that you cant cope with that

>>18458880
This is a problem since the chain is an essentially ordered series because existence is a participated in act, received by something else, nothing finite can exist by its own power. By the nature of an essentially ordered series, without a first explanation, cause, or act, the intermediate explanations or causes or what have you could not bring about their final effects since they do not have any power of their own, it must be received for some first source. We see this all the time in the natural world: sunlight is converted by plants through the process of photosynthesis into oxygen. Take away the sunlight, you stop photosynthesis, you stop making oxygen. What we have here is an a posteriori argument. Since finite being must always have a source for which their existence may be explained, as in the example above, then if their source is finite it too must also have an explanation for its existence. But if we have an infinite series of explanations then nothing in the chain really has an explanation, because we can still ask, "Why does this thing exist?" Thus there needs to be some first source which can explain the beings in the chain, otherwise you've explained nothing, you still have an open question.

>P1. Finite beings have an essence-existence distinction
Define "finite." Define "essence." On what evidence do you assert this?

>P2. Whatever has the essence-existence distinction must have a source for its existence
Define "a source for its existence." On what evidence do you assert this?

>P3. Finite beings cannot be the source of their own existence, since if they were, they would be their own explanation,
On what evidence do you assert this?

>but this is impossible because nothing finite explains itself,
Peano arithmetic is self encoding, so this is just false.

>otherwise it would exist prior to itself
Non sequitur.

>P4. If something finite has its source in another finite being, then this too must have its source for existence in another, but this chain cannot go on forever, since if it did there would be no explanation for the existence of any being in the chain
On what evidence do you assert this?

>adaqeutly
Retard.

>C. Therefore there must be some first source for the existence of finite beings, which itself is neither finite nor has a source of its own and, which, therefore, itself requires no explanation and whose essence must be identical with its existence
>And this we call God, which was to be demonstrated (quod erat demonstrandum)
Good. Now prove that "God" is conscious, deliberate, omnipotent, omniscient and is a magic space Jew who created a magic garden with a talking snake, dirt man and rib woman who ate a magic apple thereby condemning a 600-year-old man to build a floating zoo so that God could sacrifice himself to himself to save himself from himself and that this is why serial killers go to heaven while their victims go to hell.

>>18458914
>could not bring about their final effects since they do not have any power of their own, it must be received for some first source
Theres no need for that, if the power always was, it doesnt need to have source much like how if god always was, he also doesnt need to have a source. The power gets carried from one part of the chain to the next and has done so since infinitely in the past.
I agree that there is no foundational answer but i cant see how its any different from god, why does he exist? He just does much like this just does

>>18458327
Can you make any testable predictions from this? No? Then throw it into the fire.

>>18458929
>Define "finite."
Beings that are limited in power, scope, extension, time, or composition.

>Define "essence."
Essence is what a substance is (to ti ên einai).

>On what evidence do you assert this?
The defining characteristics of any substance apart from its accidents.

>Define "a source for its existence."
That which imparts existence i.e. what explains.

>On what evidence do you assert this?
Sunlight explains plants which explain why there is oxygen.

The movement of a rock is explained by contact with a stick which is being moved by a hand.

A glass room receives light from an exterior room which receives light from the sun.

Gravity explains why things fall which explains why you aren't floating.

A guitar plucks a string which produces a musical note.

The material composition of a thing is explained by its molecules which are explains by the interaction of nuclear forces.

>Peano arithmetic is self encoding, so this is just false.
This has nothing to do with this.

>Non sequitur.
False. If something finite could explain it's own existence, naturally it would be the source of its own existence, but then it would have to be in a state of actuality and potentiality in the same respect. A burning piece of wood cannot both be potentially burning and actually burning at the same time, thus if a burning piece of wood explained itself then it would have to be prior to itself, it would have to be in a state of actuality before it has act.

>On what evidence do you assert this?
We explain why earth has oxygen because there is sunlight to let plants produce oxygen. This is an adequate explanation for why earth has oxygen because there is a source to explain the existence of oxygen on earth.

If there were no ultimate or first source to explain why something exists, then you haven't given an adequate explanation for why something exists, you've run into something like an explanatory gap and, therefore, you didn't really explain anything.

>>18458929
>Good. Now prove that "God" is conscious, deliberate, omnipotent, omniscient
These are all perfections of being. Since God is a being than which nothing greater can be conceived, he must possess the greatest intellect, will, ultimate power, ultimate knowledge, etc.

>and is a magic space Jew who created a magic garden with a talking snake, dirt man and rib woman who ate a magic apple thereby condemning a 600-year-old man to build a floating zoo so that God could sacrifice himself to himself to save himself from himself and that this is why serial killers go to heaven while their victims go to hell.
Look I can do it too
>Science teaches that we live on a floating orb in the middle of infinity with a giant ball in the sky that we're traveling around at thousands and thousands of miles per hour, and said orb also have a giant floating rock going around it at thousands of miles per hour, and millions and millions and millions of years ago there were these giant lizardy dragon things roaming the earth made up of these tiny little invisible bug things you cant actually see with your eyes that randomly popped into existence from a water hole, and that there are these magical little energy packet things that humans can harness and make magical objects out of that obey us at our will and which also randomly can exist in multiple places at once.
It's not hard to make anything sound ridiculous. The only reason you reject miracles is because you've a priori assumed naturalism. Get a new rhetorical strategy, fedora.

>>18458975
>It's not hard to make anything sound ridiculous.
NTA, but the difference of course is that we have evidence for one and evidence against another. It's not about what you find ridiculous.

>>18458937
>Theres no need for that, if the power always was, it doesnt need to have source much like how if god always was, he also doesnt need to have a source. The power gets carried from one part of the chain to the next and has done so since infinitely in the past.
>I agree that there is no foundational answer but i cant see how its any different from god, why does he exist? He just does much like this just does
I think you're running into a few different confusions here. First, the argument is not that everything in existence needs an explanation. God doesn't need an explanation. The argument is, rather, that finite beings need an explanation, and anyone can see thing by simply observing the world around them. Being that something like existence is a participated in act, then finite beings which participate in it need an explanation as to why they exist. This explanation, when you go down the chain far enough, must result in God who is ipsum esse existence, otherwise you run into absurdities. The consequences of this is that God is entirely different in kind from that which he gives the act of existing to. He is infinite while they are finite. With regards to Aquinas's ways, he is uncaused while they are caused, he is unmoved while they are moved.

>>18458984
>is that we have evidence for one and evidence against another.
The point was that you can make literally anything sound ridiculous. It's an appeal to emotion, not a substantiated argument against any one particular miracle claim.

Also as a side note, read up a bit on the Duhem–Quine thesis.

>>18459000
It's not an appeal to emotion; it's an appeal to common knowledge. Even if the earth floating in space can sound ridiculous to you, it is common knowledge that there is plenty of evidence for it. On the other hand, it is also common knowledge among educated people that there is no evidence for anything in genesis.

>>18459014
No such appeal was made. Even if it was then that'd simply be argumentum ad populum. It was once "common knowledge" that the earth is the center of the universe, and at the time this was supported by empirical evidence.

Second it absolutely is appeal to emotion by intentionally using loaded language using words with strong connotations to influence the opinions of others. You can do this with literally anything and, technically, it could still be "accurate", as even you yourself conceded. But it's not intellectually honest and ignores the real categories of any theory.

>that there is no evidence for anything in genesis
1. This is begging the question. You've assumed there could be no supernatural explanation for the beginning of the universe precisely because you've assumed naturalism to be true, which has not been demonstrated
2. You assume there is a univocal interpretation of Genesis in the first place and/or that Genesis belongs to a very specific kind of genre which it does not as an ancient text.

>>18459056
>No such appeal was made.
It is implicit.
>argumentum ad populum
Not really, ad populum is when you argue that something is right because many people believe it. Here, the argument is that it is common knowledge that there is no evidence for the stories of genesis being literally true. If you think they're the same, then you might as well call any appeal to the laws of logic as an appeal to emotion.
>earth is the center of the universe, and at the time this was supported by empirical evidence.
Yes, there was evidence for it and it was discarded because stronger evidence against it was found. I don't see the issue here.
>But it's not intellectually honest
> that Genesis belongs to a very specific kind of genre which it does not as an ancient text
So why not just admit that you don't think and are not arguing that genesis is literally true and that the snake didn't talk, etc. instead of denying the common knowledge that there is no evidence for these things? That is the intellectually honest thing to do here, I would think.

>>18459092
>It is implicit.
Not really.

>Not really, ad populum is when you argue that something is right because many people believe it. Here, the argument is that it is common knowledge that there is no evidence for the stories of genesis being literally true.
Excellent reasoning skills. You attempted to demonstrate how "appeal to common knowledge" isn't argumentum ad populum while precisely showing how it's argument ad populum...

>If you think they're the same, then you might as well call any appeal to the laws of logic as an appeal to emotion.
It's really entertaining to see you pull these ad hoc "appeals" out of your ass like you know what you're talking about or something. You didn't "appeal to the laws of logic" anywhere hahaha. Have you even taken a class on logic?

>Yes, there was evidence for it and it was discarded because stronger evidence against it was found. I don't see the issue here.
Which is why "appeal to common knowledge" is fallacious. You didn't prove anything with it hahaha. Can you just not be so obtuse and admit that rhetorically you're appealing to emotion by using the language you did? You'll look a little more aware and a little less foolish.

>>18459092
>So why not just admit that you don't think and are not arguing that genesis is literally true and that the snake didn't talk, etc. instead of denying the common knowledge that there is no evidence for these things? That is the intellectually honest thing to do here, I would think.
Ok. I admit that I don't have a literal interpretation of Genesis. So? Even if I did, how does that remove the fact that you're appealing to emotion? I already showed you how literally anything, anything, can be made to sound ridiculous with the right kinds of wording. You've done nothing, absolutely nothing, to show to validity or invalidity of Genesis, just as what I did did nothing to prove or disprove the validity of the scientific explanation of the world, which you yourself admitted because you said it's based on evidence, which I agree. You then try to appeal to "common knowledge", which is really just you arguing ad populum, and then I gave you what I think is a pretty good counter-example as to why this isn't a persuasive mode of argumentation. It's clear that your motivation is driven by an emotional desire to make Christianity look silly because of your a priori commitment to naturalism which you've not actually demonstrated. This is all an attempt to distract, it looks like to me. I can make natural explanations look silly too, fedora. It's not very hard. It's not logic. It's rhetoric. Get educated.

>>18459132
>hile precisely showing how it's argument ad populum...
If you think evidence doesn't make all the difference, you're just not considered someone who can be reasoned with, at least in educated crowds. You're free to keep doing this if you want to make religion look even more silly than it actually is. I don't mind it, personally.

>>18459133
>Ok. I admit that I don't have a literal interpretation of Genesis.
See? That wasn't so hard. You could have just admitted that at the start and avoided all this.
>It's clear that your motivation is driven by an emotional desire to make Christianity look silly
I don't have any desire to do that, it does it by itself quite well.
>This is all an attempt to distract, it looks like to me.
Not at all. This was an attempt to raise awareness about evidentiary standards in public discourse.

>>18459152
>If you think evidence doesn't make all the difference, you're just not considered someone who can be reasoned with, at least in educated crowds. You're free to keep doing this if you want to make religion look even more silly than it actually is. I don't mind it, personally.
Cool. So how is "appeal to common knowledge" not argument ad populum again?

>See? That wasn't so hard. You could have just admitted that at the start and avoided all this.
Yes. I don't accept your strawman of what Christians actually believe. I think that's pretty obvious.

>I don't have any desire to do that, it does it by itself quite well.
Then why did you use charged and exaggerated language?

>Not at all. This was an attempt to raise awareness about evidentiary standards in public discourse.
You couldn't even spot the fallacies in your own arguments so I don't think I could trust someone like you to "raise awareness about evidentiary standards". lol You just have a bias against Christianity, sir.

>>18459156
>So how is "appeal to common knowledge" not argument ad populum again?
Because of the presence of evidence, of course.
>Then why did you use charged and exaggerated language?
That wasn't me. Like I already said in >>18458984, I'm not that anon. I don't think the language was exaggerated anyway, since it's just stating the things in your religious books.

>>18459160
>Because of the presence of evidence, of course.
Cool. And back when it was believed the earth was the center of the universe, with all the planets and heavenly bodies orbiting it, this too was based on the presence of evidence e.g. heavy elements fall toward the center e.g. no celestial parallax detected e.g. Ptolmey's mathematical models of the cosmos which accurately described observed positions in the stars. So again, I ask you, how is "appeal to common knowledge" literally not just argumentum ad populum?
>If something is based on common knowledge then it's based on evidence
>If something is based on evidence then it's true
>If something is based on common knowledge then it's true
Is your argument, basically. Premise 1 is not sound e.g. it is "common knowledge" we use 10% of our brain. Premise 2 is not sound, since evidence for a theory doesn't automatically prove that theory e.g. we can't observe parallax with the naked eye, therefore the earth is stationary. The truth of your conclusion isn't guaranteed by your premises, sir.

>That wasn't me. Like I already said in >>18458984, I'm not that anon. I don't think the language was exaggerated anyway, since it's just stating the things in your religious books.
Only if you think a strawman accurately represents my religious beliefs.

>>18458973
>Beings that are limited in power, scope, extension, time, or composition.
You mean like God in front of iron chariots? Also, name one "infinite being" other than God. Just to establish you're not doing special pleading with extra steps.

>Essence is what a substance is.
>The defining characteristics of any substance apart from its accidents.
Which means?

>what explains.
Not what caused? Got it.

>Sunlight explains plants which explain why there is oxygen.
>The movement of a rock is explained by contact with a stick which is being moved by a hand.
>A glass room receives light from an exterior room which receives light from the sun.
>Gravity explains why things fall which explains why you aren't floating.
>A guitar plucks a string which produces a musical note.
>The material composition of a thing is explained by its molecules which are explains by the interaction of nuclear forces.
What explains those things is your explanations... Way to shoot yourself in the foot.

>A burning piece of wood cannot both be potentially burning and actually burning at the same time
If you had done any amount of modal logic, you'd know that "A is true implies that A is possible" is piss easy to prove.

>If there were no ultimate or first source to explain why something exists
Then I can just admit we don't know and not fill the knowledge gap with the most absurd bullshit imaginable.

>you didn't really explain anything
You mean like when you say "goddidit"?

>>18458975
>Since God is a being than which nothing greater can be conceived, he must possess the greatest intellect, will, ultimate power, ultimate knowledge, etc.
Prove "a being than which nothing greater can be conceived" even makes sense in the first place. Then, prove those things make something "greater."

>>Science teaches that...
Yes, all that's true except the "magic" part. See? I don't need to get on the back foot and evade just because you're poking fun of it. Why do you?

>>18459180
>this too was based on the presence of evidence
Yes, there was evidence for geocentrism, which was replaced by better evidence for heliocentrism. There's no conflict here.
>Is your argument
It's more like, when something is common (evidence based) knowledge among the educated public, then statements contradicting this common knowledge, like snakes talking, bear a higher than usual evidential burden.

File: atheist_humilitates_himself.png (13 KB, 525x318)

13 KB PNG

>>18459195
>Also, name one "infinite being" other than God. Just to establish you're not doing special pleading with extra steps.
I don't understand your question.

>Which means?
The definition.

>What explains those things is your explanations... Way to shoot yourself in the foot.
They're merely local (proximate) examples of the kind of series I am describing, technically on a higher level they are still "incomplete" but suffice for the kind of explanation we want to give. But the argument from esse is adequate with the added benefit of completeness. However the point was simply to give easy examples of what essentially ordered series are to help people understand them.

>Not what caused? Got it.
Caused could mean explains but I'm trying to stick to the terminology used instead of adding outside baggage not necessary for the argument. This helps us stay on topic and actually assess the argument at hand while being parsimonious.

>If you had done any amount of modal logic, you'd know that "A is true implies that A is possible" is piss easy to prove.
Lmfao pic rel. I have studied modal logic btw. A-><>A is entailed in a system with a reflexive accessibility relation.

>Then I can just admit we don't know and not fill the knowledge gap with the most absurd bullshit imaginable.
So you're agnostic?

>>18459195
>Prove "a being than which nothing greater can be conceived" even makes sense in the first place.
Is there anything illogical about a maximally great being?

>Then, prove those things make something "greater."
P1. There is a gradation to be found in things: some are better (hotter, colder, etc.) than others.
P2. Things are X in proportion to how closely the resemble that which is most X.
P3. Therefore, if there is nothing which is most X, there can be nothing which is good.
P4. It follows that if anything is good, there must be something that is most good.
C. Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.

>Yes, all that's true except the "magic" part. See?
Cool. So we can make anything sound absurd if we wanted.

>I don't need to get on the back foot and evade just because you're poking fun of it. Why do you?
Because it doesn't accurately represent what I believe.

>>18459199
>Yes, there was evidence for geocentrism, which was replaced by better evidence for heliocentrism. There's no conflict here.
I agree with you. So again, how is "appeal to common knowledge" not argumentum ad populum?

>It's more like, when something is common (evidence based) knowledge among the educated public, then statements contradicting this common knowledge, like snakes talking, bear a higher than usual evidential burden.
Then you just grouped in a whole bunch of scientific theories with that.

>>18459241
>how is "appeal to common knowledge" not argumentum ad populum?
Because of the evidence, as already explained.
>just grouped in a whole bunch of scientific theories with that.
Of course, some things in established scientific theories which are not well-known to the educated public also bear that burden, and they easily bear that burden, which is why they've been accepted by the scientists.

>>18459254
>Because of the evidence, as already explained.
But just because there's evidence for a theory doesn't make the theory true. E.g. Aristotle's physics superseded by Newtonian physics. E.g. Newtonian physics superseded by General Relativity. So now again I ask, how is "appeal to common knowledge" not argumentum ad populum? What about something being common knowledge makes that something an accurate representation of reality?
>Appeal to common knowledge is not argumentum ad populum
Why?
>Because common knowledge is based on evidence and evidence makes a theory true
Unsound! Left and right sides of conjunct do not hold. I have two counter-examples above.
This is literally your argument.

>Of course, some things in established scientific theories which are not well-known to the educated public also bear that burden, and they easily bear that burden, which is why they've been accepted by the scientists.
Great, and I believe my interpretation of Genesis bears that burden (e.g. the genre of Genesis, e.g. the historical context, e.g. authorial intent).

>>18459276
>But just because there's evidence for a theory doesn't make the theory true
That wasn't the claim, was it? See my post >>18459199.
>I believe my interpretation of Genesis bears that burden
Cool, you are free to present your personal interpretation for public scrutiny if you want to, and that anon's point was talking snakes, adam and eve, etc. which are included in your religious books, fail to bear the burden (and it is common knowledge that they will fail to do so).

>>18459281
>That wasn't the claim, was it?
It absolutely is what you're arguing, you just shifted the goal post. But having entertained you, as I said many scientific theories require the same, which you conceded. I can tell you right now, if you were in a logic class, you would fail. You would be getting laughed at right now.

>Cool, you are free to present your personal interpretation for public scrutiny if you want to, and that anon's point was talking snakes, adam and eve, etc. which are included in your religious books, fail to bear the burden.
Anon's presentation included far more than just that, much of which misrepresents what I or most other Christians believe in. The thread is already derailed enough, if you want to honestly investigate different views of Genesis this information is easily accessible. I cannot possibly summarize it all here, nor do I have the energy to do so.

>(and it is common knowledge that they will fail to do so)
You still haven't explained how this isn't appeal to the majority.

>>18459294
>It absolutely is what you're arguing [...]
I don't see why you would think that when there's no evidence for it and explicit statements by me against it, but your allusion to this imaginary logic class suggests to me that you might be suffering from mild hallucinations.

>>18459308
>There's no evidence for it

(Me): So how is "appeal to common knowledge" not argument ad populum again?
(You): Because of the presence of evidence, of course.
Post: >>18459160

Premise: If something is common knowledge then it's based on evidence

(You): The difference of course is that we have evidence for one and evidence against another. It's not about what you find ridiculous.
Post: >>18458984

Premise: If a theory has evidence then it is true

Support: You got defensive here >>18459092 when I showed you how evidence for a theory doesn't make that theory true by deferring to... evidence! This is circular btw. You thought that because we have "better evidence" for a new theory, then that theory is an accurate representation of reality against the old, but that's because you assume evidence = final arbitrator of truth. Actually it's more complicated than that though.

>>18459338
>Premise: If a theory has evidence then it is true
See how this doesn't appear in my posts and you just have to make it up for your claims to go through? Frankly, I think this strengthens my case that you are hallucinating.

>>18459229
>I don't understand your question.
Maybe you shouldn't try to have intellectual discussions if you can't understand a question that simple.

>The definition.
"It means what it means" won't help ground your case.

>the argument from esse is adequate with the added benefit of completeness
Until you define your terms as I dared you to, no it's not. It's retard word salad.

>Caused could mean explains
Uhh, no. It's completely different.

>A-><>A is entailed in a system with a reflexive accessibility relation.
I.e. in any system that's not mouth-breather levels of retarded.

>So you're agnostic?
Yes, I'm an agnostic atheist like anyone with an IQ above room temperature.

>>18459231
>Is there anything illogical about a maximally great being?
Yes because I can prove not all preordered sets have a maximal element.

>P1. There is a gradation to be found in things: some are better (hotter, colder, etc.) than others.
>P2. Things are X in proportion to how closely the resemble that which is most X.
>P3. Therefore, if there is nothing which is most X, there can be nothing which is good.
>P4. It follows that if anything is good, there must be something that is most good.
>C. Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.
In other words, you point out preorders exist, then you define them in a way that presupposes a unique maximum (provably false), then OH WHAT A SURPRISE there exists a maximum. For someone who purports to have "studied modal logic," you sure suck at stuff way less advanced.

>Because it doesn't accurately represent what I believe.
What doesn't? The Bible?

>>18459357
I just demonstrated how it happens in your post. Thank you for at least conceding one premise. This betrays the fact that you moved the goal post in >>18459199
Btw you still have no demonstrated how your made up and hoc "appeal to common knowledge" isn't argumentum ad populum. I seriously don't understand why can't just be honest with yourself and simply admit you made a mistake. Like you're only human, a human who clearly has never taken a single class on logic, but a human nonetheless. Nobody in any formal debate would ever "appeal to common knowledge". You literally just made that up. Anyone with a hint of logic training could see from a mile away what that is. You obviously didn't think this was a logically fallacious form of argument until pointed out to you, and you got defensive when the same exact ways that argumentum ad populum get deconstructed with were presented.

>>18459368
>Maybe you shouldn't try to have intellectual discussions if you can't understand a question that simple.
Maybe you should have been born with the intelligence to ask intelligent questions in the first place.

>"It means what it means" won't help ground your case.
What do you think essence is?

>Until you define your terms as I dared you to, no it's not. It's retard word salad.
But I did my best to do so though here >>18458973

>I.e. in any system that's not mouth-breather levels of retarded.
Like the fact that you think somehow this even relates to any one of the premises in the OP puts you on Terrence Howard levels of stupidity. You don't understand what you're talking about.

>Yes because I can prove not all preordered sets have a maximal element.
What does that have to do with a metaphysically maximal being? You took a computer science class and now suddenly think you understand all of metaphysics or something? Just because two concepts share a word doesn't mean those concepts are related, sir. lol

>In other words, you point out preorders exist, then you define them in a way that presupposes a unique maximum (provably false), then OH WHAT A SURPRISE there exists a maximum. For someone who purports to have "studied modal logic," you sure suck at stuff way less advanced.
This literally has nothing to do with preorders. What about this has anything to do with a preorders? Explain what preorders are to me and how what this is talking about is a preorder. You sound like Terrence Howard trying to use jargon he knows nothing about.

>What doesn't? The Bible?
Your misrepresentation of Christianity and the Bible.

>>18459369
>I just demonstrated how it happens in your post.
You mean you just hallucinated things I never said and then attributed them to me. These hallucinations clearly mean a lot to you, but we've reached a point where they make rational conversation impossible, so I'll leave now and hope that your caretakers do what's best for you.

Man... internet atheists aren't the most thoughtful... are they?

>>18459392
Awesome, so your final move is a crappy attempt at ad hominem hahaha. You just have a bias against Christianity. We all know it and this thread perfectly illuminates it. You barely engaged with the OP you just derailed this thread because you can't contemplate what a simple argumentum ad populum fallacy is.

>>18458830
Not an argument. The chain of beings is infinite, and requires no "explanation", nor does any being, since all of them are part of said chain.
Don't like it? Because the chain, being both infinite and having no source of its own, requires no less explanation than your conclusion point.

>>18459410
Except the chain is an essentially ordered series which, by what an essentially ordered series is, cannot be infinite.

>>18459417
>Except the chain is an essentially ordered series
No it's not. It is entirely unordered. And it is not a series.

>>18459419
What about participation in being is not essentially ordered?

>>18459424
What do you mean by "participation in being"? And why would such a thing be "ordered", in the sense of a number line?

>>18459425
>What do you mean by "participation in being"?
I mean that finite beings do not possess esse as part of their essence, it must be "received" by something else, something which can put them into act.

>And why would such a thing be "ordered", in the sense of a number line?
An essentially ordered series has nothing to do with a sequential enummeration. It is generally speaking a simultaneous act of dependence. No sunlight, no photosynthesis, no oxygen. No foot on gas pedal, no turning of pistons, no moving car. It is hierarchically dependent, "horizontal" if you will, not "vertical".

>>18459425
>>18459438
I'm sorry I mixed the last part up. It is "vertical" not "horizontal." Those are just weird analogies though don't take them too seriously.

>>18459438
>I mean that finite beings do not possess esse as part of their essence, it must be "received" by something else, something which can put them into act.
And they give that to other things as well. Everything is connected at al points with everything else.
However, that has nothing to do with the "chain", in reality, it is actually a "net". There is no origin point of infinity, which is exactly what you seem to have a hard time understanding.
>. It is generally speaking a simultaneous act of dependence. No sunlight, no photosynthesis, no oxygen. No foot on gas pedal, no turning of pistons, no moving car.
Correct. Everything depends on everything else.
>It is hierarchically dependent
If by that you mean everything, then, no. It is not. Again, infinity and eternity has no origin point, and no cause. You do not seem to understand this.

>>18459444
It's more accurate to say that everything contains everything else. Everything is, essentially, everything. There is no beginning to everything, but a perpetual unfolding. There's no need to special plead a uncaused cause into existence, because eternity is already uncaused.

>>18458508
The lack of the existence of any being capable of grounding the chain would make the chain impossible to occur.
Sort of like: if all members of a chain have X, but no member of the chain is the source of X, then how did X come to be inside the chain? It's impossible. Therefore, there must be a source of X in the chain (now substitute X for "existence/being")

>>18459382
>Maybe you should have been born with the intelligence to ask intelligent questions in the first place.
What's unintelligent about checking for special pleading?

>What do you think essence is?
You tell me, because every time Christians use the term, it means "spooky ghost thing that can prove anything I want by namedropping it."

>But I did my best to do so though
You didn't. You said essence is substance and substance is whatever the definition of substance is.

>Like the fact that you think somehow this even relates to any one of the premises in the OP
I refuted a point you made. If that means I'm veering off topic, it's only because you were. Cry more.

>What does that have to do with a metaphysically maximal being?
Because "some things are more X than others" and "maximally X" is literally what preorders model. You chose to bring that shit up. You don't get to pretend it's off topic now that you've been exposed having no fucking idea what you're talking about.

>Just because two concepts share a word doesn't mean those concepts are related, sir.
Keep saying "more than" and "maximal" don't mean "more than" and "maximal." That'll definitely make me look like the insane one here.

>This literally has nothing to do with preorders. What about this has anything to do with a preorders? Explain what preorders are to me and how what this is talking about is a preorder.
A preorder is a reflexive and transitive binary relation. A preorder on a set X is uniquely determined by any ordered set Y and a function f:X->Y. If Y is a goodness value and f is the function that maps a being to how "good" it is, that uniquely determines a preorder on X. Again, YOU chose to work in this framework.

>Your misrepresentation of Christianity and the Bible.
If I show you the verses mentioning the talking snake, the dirt man, the rib woman, the 600-year-old man building a floating zoo and God sacrificing himself to himself, will you grow up and admit I'm right?

>>18459509
>The lack of the existence of any being capable of grounding the chain would make the chain impossible to occur.
That's because it never "occurred". It always was, and always is, and always will be.
>then how did X come to be inside the chain?
As I said the "X" quality of existing never came into existence. It always was, and always is, everywhere at every point in time.

>>18459568
>What's unintelligent about checking for special pleading
Well it's only intelligent when you know what that term means, fedora.

>You tell me, because every time Christians use the term, it means "spooky ghost thing that can prove anything I want by namedropping it."
I did tell you. Now you tell me what you think it is.

>Because "some things are more X than others" and "maximally X" is literally what preorders model. You chose to bring that shit up. You don't get to pretend it's off topic now that you've been exposed having no fucking idea what you're talking about.
>A preorder is a reflexive and transitive binary relation. A preorder on a set X is uniquely determined by any ordered set Y and a function f:X->Y. If Y is a goodness value and f is the function that maps a being to how "good" it is, that uniquely determines a preorder on X. Again, YOU chose to work in this framework.
Lmao what in the Terrence Howard is this? So what do ordering relations have to do with ontology? Can you cite any peer reviewed source which shows this as to be a major non-theoretical research area? Because to me you sound like a quack. This looks like some amateur mathematical cranckery you'd never hear about in a real university. It's not even particularly interesting. Ok cool you know what a preorder is? Great. Good for you. You took one proofs based class in set theory I can see and suddenly you think you're Ramanujan or something hahahaha.

>>18459568
>If I show you the verses mentioning the talking snake, the dirt man, the rib woman, the 600-year-old man building a floating zoo and God sacrificing himself to himself, will you grow up and admit I'm right?
Why would I when it's an appeal to ridicule? Again I could do the same exact thing with any scientific belief. This is an emotional manipulation tactic. You're strawmanning Christian beliefs by attempted to present them in the most crude kind kf way, without considering the actual interpretive framework behind them, the genre of the literature in question, or the real substance behind them. Ridiculing a set of beliefs doesn't show that the set of beliefs is false, as you yourself would concede. After all, you would agree we live on a giant floating orb in the middle of infinity and that we can make magical glowing bricks by harnessing the occult energy of completely invisible vibration packets that appear in multiple places at once and, due to the conservation of matter, might have one been part of giant lizard dragons that walked the earth millions and millions of years ago, all while agreeing that there is a fiery pit of hell beneath our feet right now that sometimes causes the earth to violently shake, and that all people living today are the product of a retard mutant fish that had butt sex with another retard mutant fish whose later retard descendants birthed a retarded walking fish called a monkey whose later descendants led to humans. We can all agree on this, right? Do you see how stupid you sound?

>>18459568
>Jargon bombing
The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than that needed to produce it. - Brandolini's law

>>18459599
>That's because it never "occurred". It always was, and always is, and always will be.
That doesn't answer anything. It makes no difference if it has always existed or not; the problem remains.
>As I said the "X" quality of existing never came into existence. It always was, and always is, everywhere at every point in time.
You didn't understand the argument. If no member of the chain is a source of X, then that means that no member of X has X of itself, but gets it from some other member of the chain, but, since no member of the chain has X of itself has X under this hypothesis, there can be no X to be had inside this chain. This is more than temporal causation; we are dealing with ontological necessity; there has to be something which is grounding the existence of X in the chain.

>>18460343
*then that means that no member of the chain has X of itself