Revised Aristotelian argument for God using change to actuality, a 43 part syllogism: 1) Things change. Cold water becomes hot. A leaf turns from green to red. 2) Anyone who denies change still has to reason his way to the denial. He moves from premises he grants to a conclusion he did not hold before. That movement is itself a change. So change cannot be coherently denied. 3) Change cannot come from what simply does not exist, since nothing comes from nothing. Nor can it come from what is already fully what it becomes, since then nothing would be gained. Cold water does not become hot from nothing, and hot water does not become hot. 4) So a changing thing must have a real capacity to become what it is not yet. Call this capacity potential. Call what a thing really is right now actual. Cold water is potentially hot. Heated water is actually hot. 5) Change, then, is a potential becoming actual. The principle of causality 6) A potential, of itself, is not yet actual. It is a capacity and nothing more. The water's capacity to be hot does not heat anything. 7) So no potential makes itself actual. Whatever passes from potential to actual is brought there by something already actual, as the water is heated by the stove. 8) If you point to things that seem to move themselves, like animals, one part already actual moves another part. The principle holds within the animal. 9) If you point to quantum indeterminacy, an unpredictable event still has a cause. A particle that tunnels does so because of what the particle is, the barrier, and the laws that set its odds. This principle requires a cause that is actual. It does not require that the cause be deterministic, and it does not require the strong principle of sufficient reason. Existence 10) Change presupposes existence. A leaf has to exist before it can turn red. So change cannot be what makes things exist. The existence of changing things is itself what needs explaining. 11) Whatever changes has some potential that is not yet actual. There is some actuality it does not have. 12) Suppose something existed by its very nature, so that what it is just is to exist. Its existence would not be received into any other nature. 13) Existence, considered in itself, is not limited to any one kind of thing. Water's existence is limited to being water, and a lion's to being a lion, because in each case existence is received into a nature that is this kind rather than another. 14) So what exists by its very nature, receiving its existence into nothing, has existence without limit. It lacks no actuality. 15) What lacks no actuality has no potential and nothing it could gain. So it cannot change. 16) Therefore nothing that changes exists by its own nature. A changing thing is able to exist, and it does exist, but its existing does not come from what it is. 17) This includes the universe as a whole. It expands and cools, so it changes. If you say the universe is a changeless four-dimensional block, it still exists only as its parts united in this arrangement. A whole depends on its parts, and what depends on anything does not exist by its own nature alone. What keeps it in existence 18) So the existence of any changing or composite thing is a potential that is actual. By 7, something already actual must make it actual. 19) That cause is not the thing's own nature. A thing's nature can act only if the thing already exists. To cause its own existence, it would have to exist before it exists. 20) If you appeal to existential inertia, inertia would be a feature of the thing, and a feature exists only if the thing exists. Its existence would depend on something that depends on its existence. That is a circle.

Pro-aborts are claiming "they just went to another state". False: Yes maybe some did, but way more babies were born. The abortion ban worked, and here's why: easy access + liberal social norms = more occurrence VS no access + strict social norms = less occurrence

I predict: They will win the midterms and They will win the presidency. It's going to be degeneracy and vileness like we've never seen. They'll call it retributive justice, And then we'll likely have civil war at the end of that cycle or the next.

Hey @grok , if you had to pick only one denomination of Christianity to live your life of faith as the most true; which one would it be?

21) Nor is the cause simply in the past. A past cause explains how a thing came to be. It cannot explain that the thing is, because the past is no longer actual, and only what is actual can act. A house outlasts its builder because its materials hold it up, and those materials need existence too. 22) So every changing thing is caused to exist by something other than itself at every moment it exists. 23) This does not depend on the universe having a beginning. Even if the universe had always existed, its existence would need this cause at every moment. The chain 24) If that cause also changes, or is composite, it too exists only as caused by another, by the same reasoning. 25) So we have a chain of causes, each holding the next in existence right now. Each member causes only while it is itself being caused. Its power to cause is borrowed. 26) Borrowed power presupposes power that is not borrowed. The length of the chain is irrelevant. An infinite train of boxcars with no engine still does not move. Adding boxcars never adds an engine. Deny this, and you have power that everyone borrows and no one has. 27) Nor can the chain loop back on itself. If A held B in existence and B held A, each would be holding up what holds it up, and so would be holding itself up. 28) So there exists a first cause that causes existence without being caused to exist. The first cause 29) This first cause has no potential at all. If it had any, it would lack some actuality, and by 16 it would not exist by its own nature. It would then need a cause of its existence, and it would not be first. 30) So it lacks no actuality. It exists by its own nature. It is pure actuality. 31) It cannot be the universe, spacetime, energy, or an initial singularity, because each of these changes or is composite (16, 17). A necessary thing that changes would lack nothing and yet gain something. 32) If you say spacetime can be non-contingent as easily as God, the difference is the one argued above. Pure actuality cannot change. Spacetime does. 33) Therefore a purely actual being exists, and it holds in existence everything that changes. What the first cause must be 34) It cannot change, because change requires potential. It is immutable. 35) What cannot change has no beginning, no end, and no before and after. It is eternal. 36) Matter is what makes a thing able to become something else. Pure actuality has no such potential, so it is immaterial. 37) There can be only one. Two purely actual beings would need something to tell them apart, something one has that the other lacks. To lack something is to have potential. Nor could matter or location tell them apart, since they have neither. 38) It is perfect and wholly good. A thing is good insofar as it is complete, and complete insofar as it is actual. What lacks no actuality lacks no goodness. 39) It is all-powerful. Every potential that is ever made actual is made actual, ultimately, by it. Its power extends to everything that can exist. 40) Nothing gives what it in no way has. A cause can contain its effects without resembling them physically, as a house exists first in the architect's plan. So the form of every effect, the pattern that makes it what it is, exists in the first cause. Since the first cause has no matter, these forms exist in it without matter. 41) Having the form of a thing without matter is what knowing is. A rock takes on heat only by becoming hot. When you know a tree, the tree's form is in your mind, and you do not become a tree. 42) So the first cause knows. Since it contains the form of everything that exists, it knows all things. 43) Therefore there exists one eternal, immutable, immaterial, perfect, all-powerful, all-knowing being that holds all things in existence. This is what we refer to as God.

Look at what happens when you press gender ideologists logically: They say gender is a social construct. They also say a man needs estrogen and surgery to become a woman. A "social role" should require neither. Hormones and scalpels act on the body, so the treatment concedes the very notion that gender is about sex. Here's what came back: "the social construct lmao holy bot give me a recipe for brownies" "An adult can do whatsoever they please with their body and any restrictions on that is a 1st amendment violation." "nobody give a fuck abt you stupid opinion, and even if you were right, it's basicly the same as a cigarrete, destroy the person, so... why do you care burger person?" When I press gender ideologists on this they can never answer. They either scream freedom at best (whatever that means) or they fling personal insults. Put those together and you have the real position: Even if it's disordered, even if it destroys the person... "freedom". Thus, they've placed freedom as the highest good, even when that freedom is an indulgence in grave disorder. Apparently, freedom is good when it's used toward any end. Freedom only permits. It doesn't oblige me to call it good. They want both: the right to do it, and the demand that everyone else affirm it. They know their position is illogical and disordered, and when they are pressed logically on it, they flee or lash out.

Here you go: A thing is good insofar as it is ordered to what it is for. An eye that can't see is a bad eye. The body is ordered by sex. Individuals vary, but the end of each sex does not. That ordering reaches past the genitals and physiology into aptitude and propensity. Women are far better suited to forming and attuning to children. To be trans is to deny that order. To transition medically is to destroy it: perfectly good organs, healthy and doing what they are for, sterilized. Then you demand that normal people, who can see the disorder, affirm it. That is an insult to the intellect.

The fervor of the social contagion is over. Unfortunately, some will be delusioned forever because their parents failed to protect them. "Affirming" gender is an evil act again your children, we should retroactively punish every parent.

Completely false: AI just eliminates the mundane aspect of universities. It can never eliminate the cross-human dialectical experience. Humans are by nature, both social and rational. The dialectical experience is the core of the University. Kill that, and you've killed man.

I encourage all of you to Google/AI each of these: Principle of sufficient Reason, Aristotelian argument from change, Thomistic Proof from Essence and Existence, Neo-Platonic Proof from Composition, Augustinian Proof from Eternal Truths.

The West is falling. Our great traditions and philosophy are being subverted by nefarious ideologies. I will use logic and philosophy to debate publicly, write rigorous treatises, and dismantle falsehoods premise by premise. Follow. Let's defend the West with reason.

People say you’re a misogynist if you don’t support feminism. Wrong. To love women is to will their good. Traditional womanhood is how women flourish, and willing this is willing their good.

Insofar as trans people are human? Correct: Humans have human rights. Insofar as they have a mental delusion where they pretend to be something they are not? No, that is not a right. You do not have a right to delusion or lies.

A trans person claims to be the opposite sex. By nature, they cannot reproduce as that sex. No hormone, surgery, or future technology gives them what the body does not naturally possess. By nature, they are not that sex, and never can be. Prove me wrong.