Welcome

The argument from motion in Thomas Aquinas' five ways to prove the existence of God.

 https://faculty.umb.edu/adam_beresford/courses/phil_100_11/reading_five_ways.pdf

A common objection to this argument is to say that an infinite causal past does exist, and therefore renders the concept of the first mover to be a false assertion. The issue with this is, is that if infinity could exist in a framework of time, there would be no way for you to arrive at the present, since the present concerns itself only with one specific point in time, whereas the idea of infinity concerns itself with no specific point. But suppose if infinity could concern itself with one specific point, then we wouldn't be thinking about infinity, as you couldn't differentiate it with that of any other so-called "point" in the framework of infinity. In a word, it would be like looking at a blank canvas and pointing to one point on said canvas and confidently declaring that you've discovered a point that is metaphysically different from all the other points. So then at best, you could only say that you infinitely existed; which would be unusual to say if you have only begun to exist after your mother and father caused you to exist.

So because one only begins to exist after the causal effect of your mother and father, one can't say they infinitely existed, and therefore can't truthfully say that infinity is applicable to time, and from said negation of the given application to saying that the past infinitely existed.

So therefore, the past doesn't stretch on to infinity, and the first cause is therefore a necessary being because of it. A boxcar doesn't move itself unless if it's pushed by another moving boxcar on the railway, and that previous boxcar being moved by a purely self-sufficient and actualizing locomotive, which is representative of the actual Actualizer of causal chains, who is commonly called God.

It should be noted that some other proofs for the existence of God that I approve of are of the following: The ontological, contingency and transcendental argument for the existence of God. There are other arguments I even more readily approve of, but they deserve their own respective substack post.

Above everything, I am a Christian; so anything that best approximates the advancement of Christian ideas like virtue and the gospel I am in favour of. Given my idealist disposition, I would consider myself to be socialist sympathetic, whereas for non-economic/social manners I am resolutely right wing/conservative. Because of my Christian faith, I believe that there are some things to which a person or society should never compromise; and of those things being ideas higher than life; namely things like truth, beauty and goodness.

If one believes that goodness is itself good, one must be convicted to never wager on goodness.

Senses can't always or even necessarily be reliable, whereas reason is. The senses being concerned with itself can't operate truthfully when a stumbling block is presented against a respective sense, such as with a blindfold for the eyes, whereas reason is always accessible and possibly reliable irrespective of the situation. A truth on a substance or situation may be hard to reason through, but it's never impossible. Unlike reason, the senses can be completely negated, and are therefore unreliable. Reason can never be negated, for if it were negated then it wouldn't necessarily be reason which is being negated.

It's the only framework in metaphysics that can give a full account and explanation for things. Take for instance the idea of the perfect circle: We possess knowledge of the perfect circle, being a thing to which each point is equally equidistant from the centre, without ever actually sensing it. This is because all material circles are invariably imperfect given the structure of atoms themselves, for a circle demands a perfect curve from all points, which isn't materially possible given how electrons necessarily speaking, are always moving and therefore never always aligned to make a perfect curvature that's needed for there to be a circle. By virtue of understanding a point of substance that necessarily speaking, is independent of the senses, this then therefore necessitates said substance to truly be of an immaterial standing in conjunction to our immaterial method of acquiescing truth, being reason. What this does is prove that material reality is only but a shadow of the true nature of reality, and that we understand the true nature of reality by musing on the form of the respective thing in question from our mental efforts through the convergent vehicle of reason. It's of note to say that within this framework, the form of things, like the perfect circle for instance, exist to be a universal in reality. This is because no matter the context of there being one or more material circles, they are all subsidiary to the universal of the circle, as one can't think of anything but the perfect circle in the mind for when one thinks about what the material circle is attempting to represent.

A common objection would be through that of a Nominalist position; being that there exists no universals or immaterial/abstract objects. But this can't be the case, since if Nominalism were true then communication would be structurally impossible, since if there were no universals of abstract objects (such as with a perfect circle), there would be no commonality that two independent minds could adhere to as a means of communication. If there is literally and absolutely no commonality between two minds (universals of abstract objects), then there is no reason to say that communication is possible in any capacity.

So by virtue of the fact that communication is possible, necessitates that universals do indeed exist in reality; and of these universals to exist in an immaterial context as necessitated by the example of the perfect circle.

The benefits you gain by denomination, are typically drowned out by a stubborn spirit that is contrary to both good politics, and the example of the Samaritan [Luke 10:30-37]. With that being said, I am Lutheran and Roman Catholic sympathetic.