Entropy says the universe cannot have been eternal. And if it wasn't eternal, it must have come into existence. If something else didn't make it come into existence, then it came from nothing. So something came from nothing, which is absurd. Therefore, something else must have made it exist.
The creator doesn't have to have been created, the creator can be eternal and outside of the cause-and-effect chain. We know that the universe isn't eternal in this way, because it would mean that everything has been around forever, and entropy means that cannot be true.
Just because it is common to break the law, doesn't mean the law ought not exist.
And if the subsequent one not eternal, then there is a time before it existed, and then it started to exist. And something cannot come from nothing, so it must have come from something that was real before it existed.
It cannot be made for a subsequent mover because, if the subsequent mover is eternal, and there be something before it, then where did the thing before it come from? If they are both eternal, then where did the difference between them come from?
Your argument is in two parts, and will be addressed separately. A cycle of gods creating gods, each in the cause-and-effect chain, can never work. For no matter how many gods there are, there will never be a working answer to "Where did it come from?"
If 'the universe' can cause itself, why has nothing else sprouted into being spontaneously, insofar as we can detect?
Negative emotion, especially hatred, is spread far more easily between people than positive emotion. Social media has allowed that spread to happen in numbers unprecedented before social media.
The form of communication is against human nature.
Another goal of school, which is foundational to the kind of people you have described, is to make free people, and forcing them into a course is detrimental to that.
The argument never had a position on whether they do or not, only whether they should.
While it may be true that a beneficial course ought to exist, and that certain people ought to take it, there is still no evidence that those people, or anyone else, ought to be required to take it.
Not having your rights respected is a way that people get oppressed, and impoverished people sometimes get oppressed.
Red is better in some respects, and blue in others. Neither can be said to have an "overall" better-ness, because the nature of better is to compare, and you must be comparing along a dimension. Like "more blond" or "less blond".
"Better" calls for definition. There are competitions where shit wins against curry, and ones were curry wins against shit.
找不到輸出按鈕
會讓投入學習的人不能忍受學習的辛苦
