THE NINTH CRUSADE
This channel is a Part of Global Crusade. JOIN the main channel GLOBAL CRUSADE 👇
https://t.me/+vHkIuoh4e2BkZTVh
EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS
DEUS HOC VULT !!!!!!
for more Material Debunking Heresies AND HERETICS Alike.
https://t.me/+vHkIuoh4e2BkZTVh
EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS
DEUS HOC VULT !!!!!!
for more Material Debunking Heresies AND HERETICS Alike.
Рэйтынг TGlist
0
0
ТыпПублічны
Вертыфікацыя
Не вертыфікаваныНадзейнасць
Не надзейныРазмяшчэнне
МоваІншая
Дата стварэння каналаЛип 20, 2023
Дадана ў TGlist
Лип 02, 2024Прыкрепленая група
(Admins only)NINTH CRUSADE
40
Рэкорды
14.05.202523:59
424Падпісчыкаў02.07.202423:59
0Індэкс цытавання26.02.202523:59
118Ахоп 1 паста23.12.202402:12
102Ахоп рэкламнага паста21.02.202523:59
26.32%ER16.01.202502:12
44.93%ERR
14.05.202513:55
Пераслаў з:
ℂ𝕒𝕥𝕙𝕠𝕝𝕚𝕔 𝔸𝕡𝕠𝕝𝕠𝕘𝕖𝕥𝕚𝕔𝕤 𝕒𝕟𝕕 ℙ𝕠𝕝𝕖𝕞𝕚𝕔𝕤
15.05.202518:27
DEBUNKING ISLAM (The QURANIC Dilemma Argument) 👆
Пераслаў з:ℂ𝕒𝕥𝕙𝕠𝕝𝕚𝕔 𝔸𝕡𝕠𝕝𝕠𝕘𝕖𝕥𝕚𝕔𝕤 𝕒𝕟𝕕 ℙ𝕠𝕝𝕖𝕞𝕚𝕔𝕤
15.05.202518:27
SO WHAT MUSLIMS ARE SUPPOSED TO BELEIVE ABOUT THE QURAN ?
They beleive its uncorrupt and Preserved ...... BUT VERSE 285 tells us to beleive this about All the Books!... when it says "We beleive in the ..... Books..and we make no distinction"
So if you're telling me that the Quran is Preserved , uncorrupted...... You're supposed to beleive the Same about the Other books as well ..... Therefore the New Testament And Old Testament are True By Default .
But here Muslims say that those Books are Corrupted 😂.... Why are you stupid Muslims going against your Quran? Your quran Confirms my Bible is true !
What This Means👇
If Muslims accept the Quran as true, they must also accept the Bible as true. But if the Bible is true, then Islam is false because it contradicts the core teachings of Christianity. If they claim the Bible is corrupt, they are denying their own scripture, which says God’s words cannot be altered.
This argument forces Muslims into a logical dilemma:
1. If they trust the Quran, they must trust the Bible—which disproves Islam.
2. If they reject the Bible, they must reject the Quran as well.
Either way, Islam collapses under its own claims. ISLAM THEREFORE IS FALSE
They beleive its uncorrupt and Preserved ...... BUT VERSE 285 tells us to beleive this about All the Books!... when it says "We beleive in the ..... Books..and we make no distinction"
So if you're telling me that the Quran is Preserved , uncorrupted...... You're supposed to beleive the Same about the Other books as well ..... Therefore the New Testament And Old Testament are True By Default .
But here Muslims say that those Books are Corrupted 😂.... Why are you stupid Muslims going against your Quran? Your quran Confirms my Bible is true !
What This Means👇
If Muslims accept the Quran as true, they must also accept the Bible as true. But if the Bible is true, then Islam is false because it contradicts the core teachings of Christianity. If they claim the Bible is corrupt, they are denying their own scripture, which says God’s words cannot be altered.
This argument forces Muslims into a logical dilemma:
1. If they trust the Quran, they must trust the Bible—which disproves Islam.
2. If they reject the Bible, they must reject the Quran as well.
Either way, Islam collapses under its own claims. ISLAM THEREFORE IS FALSE
14.05.202513:22
17.05.202514:51
Stop the Islamic plague while you still can.
Stand up for your great nation.
Learn from the fallen Middle East.
Stand up for your great nation.
Learn from the fallen Middle East.
Пераслаў з:ℂ𝕒𝕥𝕙𝕠𝕝𝕚𝕔 𝔸𝕡𝕠𝕝𝕠𝕘𝕖𝕥𝕚𝕔𝕤 𝕒𝕟𝕕 ℙ𝕠𝕝𝕖𝕞𝕚𝕔𝕤
12.05.202510:50
37. So, the purely actual actualizer is omnipotent.
38. Whatever is in an effect is in its cause in some way, whether formally, virtually, or eminently (the principle of proportionate causality).
39. The purely actual actualizer is the cause of all things.
40. So, the forms or patterns manifest in all the things it causes must in some way be in the purely actual actualizer.
41. These forms or patterns can exist either in the concrete way in which they exist in individual particular things, or in the abstract way in which they exist in the thoughts of an intellect.
★Aristotelian proof for the existence of God:
Part 3
42. They cannot exist in the purely actual actualizer in the same way they exist in individual particular things.
43. So, they must exist in the purely actual actualizer in the abstract way in which they exist in the thoughts of an intellect.
44. So, the purely actual actualizer has intellect or intelligence.
45. Since it is the forms or patterns of all things that are in the thoughts of this intellect, there is nothing that is outside the range of those thoughts.
46. For there to be nothing outside the range of something's thoughts is for that thing to be ominiscient.
47. So, the purely actual actualizer is omniscient.
48. So, there exists a purely actual cause of the existence of things, which is one, immutable, eternal, immaterial, incorporeal, perfect, fully good, omnipotent, intelligent, and omniscient.
49. But for there to be such a cause of things is just what it is for God to exist.
50. So, God exists.
●The Neo-Platonic proof for the existence of God
Part 1
1. The things of our experience are composite.
2. A composite exists at any moment only insofar as its parts are combined at that moment.
3. This composition of parts requires a concurrent cause.
4. So, any composite has a cause of its existence at any moment at which it exists.
5. So, each of the things of our experience has a cause at any moment at which it exists.
6. If the cause of a composite thing's existence at any moment is itself composite, then it will in turn require a cause of its own existence at that moment.
7. The regress of causes this entails is hierarchical in nature, and such a regress must have a first member.
8. Only something absolutely simple or noncomposite could be the first member of such a series.
9. So, the existence of each of the things of our experience presupposes an absolutely simple or noncomposite cause.
10. In order for there to be more than absolutely one simple or noncomposite cause, each would have to have some differentiating feature that the others lacked.
11. But for a cause to have such a feature would be for it to have parts, in which case it would not really be simple or noncomposite.
12. So, no absolutely simple or noncomposite cause can have such a differentiating feature.
13. So, there cannot be more than one absolutely simple or non-composite cause.
●The Neo-Platonic proof for the existence of God
Part 2
14. If the absolutely simple or noncomposite cause were changeable, then it would have parts which it gains or loses which, being simple or non-composite, it does not have.
15. So, the absolutely simple or noncomposite cause is changeless or immutable.
16. If the absolutely simple or noncomposite cause had a beginning or an end, it would have parts which could either be combined or broken apart.
17. So, since it has no such parts, the absolutely simple or non-composite cause is beginningless and endless.
18. Whatever is immutable, beginningless, and endless is eternal.
19. So, the absolutely simple or noncomposite cause is eternal.
20. If something is caused, then it has parts which need to be combined.
21. So, the absolutely simple or noncomposite cause, since it has no parts, is uncaused.
38. Whatever is in an effect is in its cause in some way, whether formally, virtually, or eminently (the principle of proportionate causality).
39. The purely actual actualizer is the cause of all things.
40. So, the forms or patterns manifest in all the things it causes must in some way be in the purely actual actualizer.
41. These forms or patterns can exist either in the concrete way in which they exist in individual particular things, or in the abstract way in which they exist in the thoughts of an intellect.
★Aristotelian proof for the existence of God:
Part 3
42. They cannot exist in the purely actual actualizer in the same way they exist in individual particular things.
43. So, they must exist in the purely actual actualizer in the abstract way in which they exist in the thoughts of an intellect.
44. So, the purely actual actualizer has intellect or intelligence.
45. Since it is the forms or patterns of all things that are in the thoughts of this intellect, there is nothing that is outside the range of those thoughts.
46. For there to be nothing outside the range of something's thoughts is for that thing to be ominiscient.
47. So, the purely actual actualizer is omniscient.
48. So, there exists a purely actual cause of the existence of things, which is one, immutable, eternal, immaterial, incorporeal, perfect, fully good, omnipotent, intelligent, and omniscient.
49. But for there to be such a cause of things is just what it is for God to exist.
50. So, God exists.
●The Neo-Platonic proof for the existence of God
Part 1
1. The things of our experience are composite.
2. A composite exists at any moment only insofar as its parts are combined at that moment.
3. This composition of parts requires a concurrent cause.
4. So, any composite has a cause of its existence at any moment at which it exists.
5. So, each of the things of our experience has a cause at any moment at which it exists.
6. If the cause of a composite thing's existence at any moment is itself composite, then it will in turn require a cause of its own existence at that moment.
7. The regress of causes this entails is hierarchical in nature, and such a regress must have a first member.
8. Only something absolutely simple or noncomposite could be the first member of such a series.
9. So, the existence of each of the things of our experience presupposes an absolutely simple or noncomposite cause.
10. In order for there to be more than absolutely one simple or noncomposite cause, each would have to have some differentiating feature that the others lacked.
11. But for a cause to have such a feature would be for it to have parts, in which case it would not really be simple or noncomposite.
12. So, no absolutely simple or noncomposite cause can have such a differentiating feature.
13. So, there cannot be more than one absolutely simple or non-composite cause.
●The Neo-Platonic proof for the existence of God
Part 2
14. If the absolutely simple or noncomposite cause were changeable, then it would have parts which it gains or loses which, being simple or non-composite, it does not have.
15. So, the absolutely simple or noncomposite cause is changeless or immutable.
16. If the absolutely simple or noncomposite cause had a beginning or an end, it would have parts which could either be combined or broken apart.
17. So, since it has no such parts, the absolutely simple or non-composite cause is beginningless and endless.
18. Whatever is immutable, beginningless, and endless is eternal.
19. So, the absolutely simple or noncomposite cause is eternal.
20. If something is caused, then it has parts which need to be combined.
21. So, the absolutely simple or noncomposite cause, since it has no parts, is uncaused.
Пераслаў з:ℂ𝕒𝕥𝕙𝕠𝕝𝕚𝕔 𝔸𝕡𝕠𝕝𝕠𝕘𝕖𝕥𝕚𝕔𝕤 𝕒𝕟𝕕 ℙ𝕠𝕝𝕖𝕞𝕚𝕔𝕤
12.05.202510:50
22. Everything is either a mind, or a mental content, or a material entity, or an abstract entity.
23. An abstract entity is causally inert.
24. So, the absolutely simple or noncomposite cause, since it is not causally inert, is not an abstract entity.
25. A material entity has parts and is changeable.
26. So, the absolutely simple or noncomposite cause, since it is without parts and changeless, is not a material entity.
27. A mental content presupposes the existence of a mind, and so cannot be the ultimate cause of anything.
28. So, the absolutely simple or noncomposite cause, being the ultimate cause of things, cannot be a mental content.
29. So, the absolutely simple or noncomposite cause must be a mind.
30. Since the absolutely simple or noncomposite cause is unique, everything other than it is composite.
31. Every composite has the absolutely simple or noncomposite cause as its ultimate cause.
32. So, the absolutely simple or noncomposite cause is the ultimate cause of everything other than itself.
33. If the absolutely simple or noncomposite cause had potentialities as well as actualities, it would have parts
●The Neo-Platonic proof for the existence of God
Part 3
34. So, since it has no parts, it must have no potentialities but be purely actual.
35. A purely actual cause must be perfect, omnipotent, fully good, and omniscient.
36. So, there exists a cause which is simple or noncomposite, unique, immutable, eternal, immaterial, a mind or intellect, the uncaused ultimate cause of everything other than itself, purely actual, perfect, omnipotent, fully good, and omniscient.
37. But for there to be such a cause is just what it is for God to exist.
38. So, God exists.
■The Augustinian Proof for the Existence of God:
Part 1:
1. There are three possible accounts of abstract objects such as universals, propositions, numbers and other mathematical objects, and possible worlds: realism, nominalism, and conceptualism.
2. There are decisive arguments in favor of realism.
3. There are insuperable objections against nominalism.
4. There are insuperable objections against conceptualism.
5. So, some version of realism is true.
6. There are three possible versions of realism: Platonic realism, Aristotelian realism, and Scholastic realism.
7. If Platonic realism is true, then abstract objects exist in a "third realm" distinct from either the material world or any intellect.
8. If Aristotelian realism is true, then abstract objects exist only in human or other contingently existing intellects.
9. If Scholastic realism is true, then abstract objects exist not only in contingently existing intellects but also in at least one necessarily existing intellect.
10. There are insuperable objections against the claim that abstract objects exist in a "third realm" distinct from either the material world or any intellect.
11. So, Platonic realism is not true.
12. There are insuperable objections against the claim that abstract objects exist only in human or other contingently existing intellects.
13. So, Aristotelian realism is not true.
14. So, Scholastic realism is true.
15. So, abstract objects exist not only in contingently existing intellects but also in at least one necessarily existing intellect.
16. Abstract objects such as universals, propositions, numbers and other mathematical objects, and possible worlds are all logically related to one another in such a way that they form an interlocking system of ideas to one another in such a way that they form an interlocking system of ideas.
■The Augustinian Proof for the Existence of God:
Part 2:
17. The reasons for concluding that at least some abstract objects exist in a necessarily existing intellect also entail that this interlocking system of ideas must exist in a necessarily existing intellect.
23. An abstract entity is causally inert.
24. So, the absolutely simple or noncomposite cause, since it is not causally inert, is not an abstract entity.
25. A material entity has parts and is changeable.
26. So, the absolutely simple or noncomposite cause, since it is without parts and changeless, is not a material entity.
27. A mental content presupposes the existence of a mind, and so cannot be the ultimate cause of anything.
28. So, the absolutely simple or noncomposite cause, being the ultimate cause of things, cannot be a mental content.
29. So, the absolutely simple or noncomposite cause must be a mind.
30. Since the absolutely simple or noncomposite cause is unique, everything other than it is composite.
31. Every composite has the absolutely simple or noncomposite cause as its ultimate cause.
32. So, the absolutely simple or noncomposite cause is the ultimate cause of everything other than itself.
33. If the absolutely simple or noncomposite cause had potentialities as well as actualities, it would have parts
●The Neo-Platonic proof for the existence of God
Part 3
34. So, since it has no parts, it must have no potentialities but be purely actual.
35. A purely actual cause must be perfect, omnipotent, fully good, and omniscient.
36. So, there exists a cause which is simple or noncomposite, unique, immutable, eternal, immaterial, a mind or intellect, the uncaused ultimate cause of everything other than itself, purely actual, perfect, omnipotent, fully good, and omniscient.
37. But for there to be such a cause is just what it is for God to exist.
38. So, God exists.
■The Augustinian Proof for the Existence of God:
Part 1:
1. There are three possible accounts of abstract objects such as universals, propositions, numbers and other mathematical objects, and possible worlds: realism, nominalism, and conceptualism.
2. There are decisive arguments in favor of realism.
3. There are insuperable objections against nominalism.
4. There are insuperable objections against conceptualism.
5. So, some version of realism is true.
6. There are three possible versions of realism: Platonic realism, Aristotelian realism, and Scholastic realism.
7. If Platonic realism is true, then abstract objects exist in a "third realm" distinct from either the material world or any intellect.
8. If Aristotelian realism is true, then abstract objects exist only in human or other contingently existing intellects.
9. If Scholastic realism is true, then abstract objects exist not only in contingently existing intellects but also in at least one necessarily existing intellect.
10. There are insuperable objections against the claim that abstract objects exist in a "third realm" distinct from either the material world or any intellect.
11. So, Platonic realism is not true.
12. There are insuperable objections against the claim that abstract objects exist only in human or other contingently existing intellects.
13. So, Aristotelian realism is not true.
14. So, Scholastic realism is true.
15. So, abstract objects exist not only in contingently existing intellects but also in at least one necessarily existing intellect.
16. Abstract objects such as universals, propositions, numbers and other mathematical objects, and possible worlds are all logically related to one another in such a way that they form an interlocking system of ideas to one another in such a way that they form an interlocking system of ideas.
■The Augustinian Proof for the Existence of God:
Part 2:
17. The reasons for concluding that at least some abstract objects exist in a necessarily existing intellect also entail that this interlocking system of ideas must exist in a necessarily existing intellect.
Пераслаў з:ℂ𝕒𝕥𝕙𝕠𝕝𝕚𝕔 𝔸𝕡𝕠𝕝𝕠𝕘𝕖𝕥𝕚𝕔𝕤 𝕒𝕟𝕕 ℙ𝕠𝕝𝕖𝕞𝕚𝕔𝕤
12.05.202510:50
18. So, this interlocking system of ideas exists in at least one necessarily existing intellect.
19. A necessarily existing intellect would be purely actual.
20. There cannot be more than one thing that is purely actual.
21. So, there cannot be more than one necessarily existing intellect.
22. An intellect in which the interlocking system of ideas in question existed would be conceptually omniscient.
23. So, the one necessarily existing intellect is conceptually omniscient.
24. If this one necessarily existing intellect were not also omniscient in the stronger sense that it knows all contingent truths, then it would have unrealized potential and thus not be purely actual.
25. So, it is also omniscient in this stronger sense.
26. What is purely actual must also be omnipotent, fully good, immutable, immaterial, incorporeal, and eternal.
27. So, there is exactly one necessarily existing intellect, which is purely actual, omniscient, omnipotent, fully good, immutable, immaterial, incorporeal, and eternal.
28. But for there to be such a thing is just what it is for God to exist.
29. So, God exists.
¤》The Thomistic Proof for the Existence of God:
Part 1:
1. For any of the things we know from experience (stones, trees, dogs, human beings, etc.), there is a distinction to be drawn between its essence and its existence.
2. If this were not a real distinction a distinction between aspects of reality itself and not merely between ways of thinking or talking about reality-then we could know whether or not a thing exists simply by knowing its essence.
3. But we cannot know whether or not a thing exists simply by knowing its essence.
4. If it were not a real distinction, then the things we know from experience would exist in a necessary way rather than in a merely contingent way.
5. But in fact they exist in a merely contingent way, and not in a necessary way.
6. If there could in principle be more than one thing the essence of which is identical to its existence, then two or more such things would be distinguishable in the way that species of the same genus are distinguished, or members of the same species are distinguished, or in some other way.
7. But they cannot be distinguished in any of these ways.
8. So, there could not in principle be more than one thing the essence of which is identical to its existence.
9. So, for any of the things we know from experience, if the distinction between its essence and its existence were not a real distinction, then there could not in principle be more than one of them.
10. But in fact, for each of the things we know from experience, there is, or could be, more than one of them.
11. So, for each of the things we know from experience, the distinction between its essence and its existence is a real distinction.
12. For anything the essence of which is really distinct from its existence, its existence must be imparted to it either by itself or by some cause distinct from it.
13. But if it imparted existence to itself, it would be the cause of itself.
14. Nothing can be the cause of itself.
15. So, it cannot impart existence to itself.
16. So, for anything the essence of which is really distinct from its existence, its existence must be imparted to it by some cause distinct from it.
17. Since its essence and existence remain really distinct at every
moment at which it exists, including here and now, its existence must be imparted to it by some cause distinct from it at every moment at which it exists, including here and now.
18. So, for each of the things we know from experience, its existence must be imparted to it by some cause distinct from it at every moment at which it exists, including here and now.
19. Either this cause is itself something the essence of which is distinct from its existence, or it is something whose essence and existence are identical, something that just is subsistent existence itself.
¤》The Thomistic Proof for the Existence of God:
Part 2:
19. A necessarily existing intellect would be purely actual.
20. There cannot be more than one thing that is purely actual.
21. So, there cannot be more than one necessarily existing intellect.
22. An intellect in which the interlocking system of ideas in question existed would be conceptually omniscient.
23. So, the one necessarily existing intellect is conceptually omniscient.
24. If this one necessarily existing intellect were not also omniscient in the stronger sense that it knows all contingent truths, then it would have unrealized potential and thus not be purely actual.
25. So, it is also omniscient in this stronger sense.
26. What is purely actual must also be omnipotent, fully good, immutable, immaterial, incorporeal, and eternal.
27. So, there is exactly one necessarily existing intellect, which is purely actual, omniscient, omnipotent, fully good, immutable, immaterial, incorporeal, and eternal.
28. But for there to be such a thing is just what it is for God to exist.
29. So, God exists.
¤》The Thomistic Proof for the Existence of God:
Part 1:
1. For any of the things we know from experience (stones, trees, dogs, human beings, etc.), there is a distinction to be drawn between its essence and its existence.
2. If this were not a real distinction a distinction between aspects of reality itself and not merely between ways of thinking or talking about reality-then we could know whether or not a thing exists simply by knowing its essence.
3. But we cannot know whether or not a thing exists simply by knowing its essence.
4. If it were not a real distinction, then the things we know from experience would exist in a necessary way rather than in a merely contingent way.
5. But in fact they exist in a merely contingent way, and not in a necessary way.
6. If there could in principle be more than one thing the essence of which is identical to its existence, then two or more such things would be distinguishable in the way that species of the same genus are distinguished, or members of the same species are distinguished, or in some other way.
7. But they cannot be distinguished in any of these ways.
8. So, there could not in principle be more than one thing the essence of which is identical to its existence.
9. So, for any of the things we know from experience, if the distinction between its essence and its existence were not a real distinction, then there could not in principle be more than one of them.
10. But in fact, for each of the things we know from experience, there is, or could be, more than one of them.
11. So, for each of the things we know from experience, the distinction between its essence and its existence is a real distinction.
12. For anything the essence of which is really distinct from its existence, its existence must be imparted to it either by itself or by some cause distinct from it.
13. But if it imparted existence to itself, it would be the cause of itself.
14. Nothing can be the cause of itself.
15. So, it cannot impart existence to itself.
16. So, for anything the essence of which is really distinct from its existence, its existence must be imparted to it by some cause distinct from it.
17. Since its essence and existence remain really distinct at every
moment at which it exists, including here and now, its existence must be imparted to it by some cause distinct from it at every moment at which it exists, including here and now.
18. So, for each of the things we know from experience, its existence must be imparted to it by some cause distinct from it at every moment at which it exists, including here and now.
19. Either this cause is itself something the essence of which is distinct from its existence, or it is something whose essence and existence are identical, something that just is subsistent existence itself.
¤》The Thomistic Proof for the Existence of God:
Part 2:
14.05.202513:55
Do not take the word of a few Muslims who don't know their cult or are simply lying to you about being "peaceful".
Judge Islam by Muslims' actions, from Muhammed to all Islamic leaders/organizations.
Judge Islam by Muslims' actions, from Muhammed to all Islamic leaders/organizations.
Пераслаў з:ℂ𝕒𝕥𝕙𝕠𝕝𝕚𝕔 𝔸𝕡𝕠𝕝𝕠𝕘𝕖𝕥𝕚𝕔𝕤 𝕒𝕟𝕕 ℙ𝕠𝕝𝕖𝕞𝕚𝕔𝕤
12.05.202510:50
20. If this cause is something the essence of which is distinct from its existence, then its own existence too must be imparted to it by some cause distinct from it at every moment at which it exists, including here and now.
21. The causal series this would generate would be a hierarchical one, which cannot regress infinitely but must have a first member.
22. This first member could only be something whose essence and existence are identical, something that just is subsistent existence itself.
23. So, either directly or indirectly, each of the things we know from experience has its existence imparted to it at every moment at which it exists, including here and now, by some cause whose essence and existence are identical, something that just is subsistent existence itself.
24. Since there cannot in principle be more than one thing the essence of which is identical to its existence, this cause which is subsistent existence itself is unique.
25. Since it is unique, anything other than it that exists must be something the essence of which is distinct from its existence.
26. Anything the essence of which is distinct from its existence will, either directly or indirectly, have its existence imparted to it by a cause which is subsistent existence itself.
27. So, this unique cause which is subsistent existence itself is the cause of everything other than itself.
28. Since whatever lacks a real distinction between its essence and its existence would exist in a necessary rather than contingent way, this unique cause which is subsistent existence itself exists in a necessary way.
29. Whatever is subsistent existence itself need not and could not have had a cause of its own.
30. So, this unique cause which is subsistent existence itself is uncaused.
31. If that which is subsistent existence itself had some potentiality for existence which needed to be actualized, then existence would have to be imparted to it by some cause.
32. So, that which is subsistent existence itself has no potential for existence which needs actualization, but rather exists in a purely actual way.
¤》The Thomistic Proof for the Existence of God:
Part 3:
33. Whatever is purely actual must be immutable, eternal, immaterial, incorporeal, perfect, omnipotent, fully good, intelligent, and omniscient.
34. So, each of the things of our experience has its existence imparted to it at every moment by a cause which is Subsistent Existence Itself, one, necessarily existing, the uncaused cause of everything other than itself, purely actual, immutable, eternal, immaterial, incorporeal, perfect, omnipotent, fully good, intelligent, and omniscient.
35. But for there to be such a cause is for God to exist.
36. So, God exists.
◆Rationalist Proof for the Existence of God:
Part 1:
1. The principle of sufficient reason (PSR) holds that there is an explanation for the existence of anything that does exist and for its having the attributes it has.
2. If PSR were not true, then things and events without evident explanation or intelligibility would be extremely common.
3. But this is the opposite of what common sense and science alike find to be the case.
4. If PSR were not true, then we would be unable to trust our own cognitive faculties.
5. But in fact we are able to trust those faculties.
6. Furthermore, there is no principled way to deny the truth of PSR while generally accepting that there are genuine explanations in science and philosophy.
7. But there are many genuine explanations to be found in science and philosophy.
8. So, PSR is true.
9. The explanation of the existence of anything is to be found either in some other thing which causes it, in which case it is contingent, or in its own nature, in which case it is necessary; PSR rules out any purported third alternative on which a thing's existence is explained by nothing.
21. The causal series this would generate would be a hierarchical one, which cannot regress infinitely but must have a first member.
22. This first member could only be something whose essence and existence are identical, something that just is subsistent existence itself.
23. So, either directly or indirectly, each of the things we know from experience has its existence imparted to it at every moment at which it exists, including here and now, by some cause whose essence and existence are identical, something that just is subsistent existence itself.
24. Since there cannot in principle be more than one thing the essence of which is identical to its existence, this cause which is subsistent existence itself is unique.
25. Since it is unique, anything other than it that exists must be something the essence of which is distinct from its existence.
26. Anything the essence of which is distinct from its existence will, either directly or indirectly, have its existence imparted to it by a cause which is subsistent existence itself.
27. So, this unique cause which is subsistent existence itself is the cause of everything other than itself.
28. Since whatever lacks a real distinction between its essence and its existence would exist in a necessary rather than contingent way, this unique cause which is subsistent existence itself exists in a necessary way.
29. Whatever is subsistent existence itself need not and could not have had a cause of its own.
30. So, this unique cause which is subsistent existence itself is uncaused.
31. If that which is subsistent existence itself had some potentiality for existence which needed to be actualized, then existence would have to be imparted to it by some cause.
32. So, that which is subsistent existence itself has no potential for existence which needs actualization, but rather exists in a purely actual way.
¤》The Thomistic Proof for the Existence of God:
Part 3:
33. Whatever is purely actual must be immutable, eternal, immaterial, incorporeal, perfect, omnipotent, fully good, intelligent, and omniscient.
34. So, each of the things of our experience has its existence imparted to it at every moment by a cause which is Subsistent Existence Itself, one, necessarily existing, the uncaused cause of everything other than itself, purely actual, immutable, eternal, immaterial, incorporeal, perfect, omnipotent, fully good, intelligent, and omniscient.
35. But for there to be such a cause is for God to exist.
36. So, God exists.
◆Rationalist Proof for the Existence of God:
Part 1:
1. The principle of sufficient reason (PSR) holds that there is an explanation for the existence of anything that does exist and for its having the attributes it has.
2. If PSR were not true, then things and events without evident explanation or intelligibility would be extremely common.
3. But this is the opposite of what common sense and science alike find to be the case.
4. If PSR were not true, then we would be unable to trust our own cognitive faculties.
5. But in fact we are able to trust those faculties.
6. Furthermore, there is no principled way to deny the truth of PSR while generally accepting that there are genuine explanations in science and philosophy.
7. But there are many genuine explanations to be found in science and philosophy.
8. So, PSR is true.
9. The explanation of the existence of anything is to be found either in some other thing which causes it, in which case it is contingent, or in its own nature, in which case it is necessary; PSR rules out any purported third alternative on which a thing's existence is explained by nothing.
Пераслаў з:ℂ𝕒𝕥𝕙𝕠𝕝𝕚𝕔 𝔸𝕡𝕠𝕝𝕠𝕘𝕖𝕥𝕚𝕔𝕤 𝕒𝕟𝕕 ℙ𝕠𝕝𝕖𝕞𝕚𝕔𝕤
12.05.202510:50
ARGUMENTS AGAINST ATHEISM 👇
(Arguments for the existence of God)
★Aristotelian proof for the existence of God:
part 1
1. Change is a real feature of the world.
2. But change is the actualization of a potential.
3. So, the actualization of potential is a real feature of the world.
4. No potential can be actualized unless something already actual actualizes it (the principle of causality).
5. So, any change is caused by something already actual.
6. The occurrence of any change C presupposes some thing or substance S which changes.
7. The existence of S at any given moment itself presupposes the concurrent actualization of S's potential for existence.
8. So, any substance S has at any moment some actualizer A of its existence.
9. A's own existence at the moment it actualizes S itself presupposes either (a) the concurrent actualization of its own potential for existence or (b) A's being purely actual.
10. If A's existence at the moment it actualizes S presupposes the concurrent actualization of its own potential for existence, then there exists a regress of concurrent actualizers that is either infinite or terminates in a purely actual actualizer.
11
. But such a regress of concurrent actualizers would constitute a hierarchical causal series, and such a series cannot regress infinitely.
12. So, either A itself is a purely actual actualizer or there is a purely actual actualizer which terminates the regress that begins with the actualization of A.
13. So, the occurrence of C and thus the existence of S at any given moment presupposes the existence of a purely actual actualizer.
14. So, there is a purely actual actualizer.
15. In order for there to be more than one purely actual actualizer, there would have to be some differentiating feature that one such actualizer has that the others lack.
16. But there could be such a differentiating feature only if a purely actual actualizer had some unactualized potential, which, being purely actual, it does not have.
17. So, there can be no such differentiating feature, and thus no way for there to be more than one purely actual actualizer.
18. So, there is only one purely actual actualizer.
★Aristotelian proof for the existence of God:
Part 2
19. In order for this purely actual actualizer to be capable of change, it would have to have potentials capable of actualization.
20. But being purely actual, it lacks any such potentials.
21. So, it is immutable or incapable of change.
22. If this purely actual actualizer existed in time, then it would be capable of change, which it is not.
23. So, this purely actual actualizer is eternal, existing outside of time.
24. If the purely actual actualizer were material, then it would be changeable and exist in time, which it does not.
25. So, the purely actual actualizer is immaterial.
26. If the purely actual actualizer were corporeal, then it would be material, which it is not.
27. So, the purely actual actualizer is incorporeal.
28. If the purely actual actualizer were imperfect in any way, it would have some unactualized potential, which, being purely actual, it does not have.
29. So, the purely actual actualizer is perfect.
30. For something to be less than fully good is for it to have a privation -that is, to fail to actualize some feature proper to it.
31. A purely actual actualizer, being purely actual, can have no such privation.
32. So, the purely actual actualizer is fully good.
33. To have power entails being able to actualize potentials.
34. Any potential that is actualized is either actualized by the purely actual actualizer or by a series of actualizers which terminates in the purely actual actualizer.
35. So, all power derives from the purely actual actualizer.
36. But to be that from which all power derives is to be omnipotent.
(Arguments for the existence of God)
★Aristotelian proof for the existence of God:
part 1
1. Change is a real feature of the world.
2. But change is the actualization of a potential.
3. So, the actualization of potential is a real feature of the world.
4. No potential can be actualized unless something already actual actualizes it (the principle of causality).
5. So, any change is caused by something already actual.
6. The occurrence of any change C presupposes some thing or substance S which changes.
7. The existence of S at any given moment itself presupposes the concurrent actualization of S's potential for existence.
8. So, any substance S has at any moment some actualizer A of its existence.
9. A's own existence at the moment it actualizes S itself presupposes either (a) the concurrent actualization of its own potential for existence or (b) A's being purely actual.
10. If A's existence at the moment it actualizes S presupposes the concurrent actualization of its own potential for existence, then there exists a regress of concurrent actualizers that is either infinite or terminates in a purely actual actualizer.
11
. But such a regress of concurrent actualizers would constitute a hierarchical causal series, and such a series cannot regress infinitely.
12. So, either A itself is a purely actual actualizer or there is a purely actual actualizer which terminates the regress that begins with the actualization of A.
13. So, the occurrence of C and thus the existence of S at any given moment presupposes the existence of a purely actual actualizer.
14. So, there is a purely actual actualizer.
15. In order for there to be more than one purely actual actualizer, there would have to be some differentiating feature that one such actualizer has that the others lack.
16. But there could be such a differentiating feature only if a purely actual actualizer had some unactualized potential, which, being purely actual, it does not have.
17. So, there can be no such differentiating feature, and thus no way for there to be more than one purely actual actualizer.
18. So, there is only one purely actual actualizer.
★Aristotelian proof for the existence of God:
Part 2
19. In order for this purely actual actualizer to be capable of change, it would have to have potentials capable of actualization.
20. But being purely actual, it lacks any such potentials.
21. So, it is immutable or incapable of change.
22. If this purely actual actualizer existed in time, then it would be capable of change, which it is not.
23. So, this purely actual actualizer is eternal, existing outside of time.
24. If the purely actual actualizer were material, then it would be changeable and exist in time, which it does not.
25. So, the purely actual actualizer is immaterial.
26. If the purely actual actualizer were corporeal, then it would be material, which it is not.
27. So, the purely actual actualizer is incorporeal.
28. If the purely actual actualizer were imperfect in any way, it would have some unactualized potential, which, being purely actual, it does not have.
29. So, the purely actual actualizer is perfect.
30. For something to be less than fully good is for it to have a privation -that is, to fail to actualize some feature proper to it.
31. A purely actual actualizer, being purely actual, can have no such privation.
32. So, the purely actual actualizer is fully good.
33. To have power entails being able to actualize potentials.
34. Any potential that is actualized is either actualized by the purely actual actualizer or by a series of actualizers which terminates in the purely actual actualizer.
35. So, all power derives from the purely actual actualizer.
36. But to be that from which all power derives is to be omnipotent.
15.05.202514:26
Stop the Islamic plague, learn the lesson from the fallen Middle East.
16.05.202514:47
Quran is the "origin of all civilization" but Islam☪️ is sill still the least of humanity in every aspect somehow.
Увайдзіце, каб разблакаваць больш функцый.
