1. Our senses prove that some things are in motion.
2. Things move when potential motion becomes actual motion.
3. Only an actual motion can convert a potential motion into an actual motion.
4. Nothing can be at once in both actuality and potentiality in the same respect (i.e., if both actual and potential, it is actual in one respect and potential in another).
5. Therefore nothing can move itself.
6. Therefore each thing in motion is moved by something else.
7. The sequence of motion cannot extend ad infinitum.
8. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Well we were to bite our lips and temporarily accept 1-4, and grant 5 and 6 for the sake of argument, how the hell do you get 7 from 1-6? Is 7 an additional postulate hidden in the middle?
The sequence of motion cannot extend ad infinitum because that's a mathematical impossibility. Infinite regresses are an example of an actual infinity. If you accept that this could occur, then you accept that time regresses infinitely. In this case, there would be two problems that I spot. First, you have no means by which you could arive at the present moment. Since you never began, you cannot arive at any temporal point. The second problem is that you have no starting point, so existence just is with no causal explanation. Everything that exists ultimately leads back to no cause at all. So how did everything arise to begin with?
Who told you it was a mathematical impossibility, and why did you believe them?!
No one told me it was impossible. I've researched it myself and since I understand mathematics, I understand the proof. This site gives a pretty good explanation. https://www.trueorigin.org/abio.php
Got to love it when the arm chair philosophers come around and tell you what you've been doing for decades isn't possible!
You can't expect to be taken seriously and refer to Aquinas or anything I've said is armchair philosophy. And what do you mean "what you've been doing for decades"? We've been doing abiogenesis for decades?
No, it was in reference to your statement that an infinite regress is a mathematical impossibility.
So what have we been doing for decades that I'm claiming is impossible? Also, would you be willing to discuss this on Skype?
Yet another failed line of reasoning from the Op. Another predetermined conclusion yet ignoring the glaring facts that this god has never been proven, and the fact that something (according to the OP line of thought) must be set in motion by yet another being.
Just stop Radical Whiggery. Until you PROVE this god, all your stream of consciousness statements are just childish ramblings.
"The glaring facts that this god has never been proven" Well that's quite an assertion since I've posted two proofs of this non-contingent being. Now you don't necessarily have to call it god or asign divinity to it. But the arguments still hold.
@ Radical. The argument doesn't hold until you prove this god, whatever you want to call it. It is at best open ended. Your line of reasoning is that every motion MUST be caused by something. That may or may not be true, probably not. But extraordinarily you come to a conclusion that a god must have started everything in motion without one shred of evidence. So the argument is at best open ended but in reality false.
My guess that if you actually have an education, it is a religious institution that conveniently ignores logic when it suits their agenda. Because that is what you have done in the post and every post I have read of yours.
I didn't say everything must be caused. The PSR holds that everything must have a reason, cause, or grounding. If something is contingent, then its cause is another being. If something is not contingent, then it is grounded in itself. An example of this would be the content of any of the laws of logic. Those truths did not begin at some point. They are atemporal. I don't understand what you mean by evidence if you don't accept the argument itself as evidence. A conclusion that follows from sound premises is proof. As far as my education goes, I've not set foot in a Church or religious institution in years. I grew up a moderate Christian. I became an atheist when I was in 7th grade. And now I'm what you might call an agnostic deist. I don't see how I'm ignoring logic. I'd love for you to explain in a bit more depth.
I have explained this in exhausting depth on your other OP. I am not about to do it again. BTW this OP is the same as the other.
You haven't given any depth. And they're not the same at all. The argument from motion is the first cosmological argument from Aquinas, whereas the argument from possibility and necessity is the third. They describe different aspects of causality.
BULLSHIT! I knocked down every one of your points. Contingent beings and a being to start motion....basically the same lame argument.
Oh bullshit. You wrote: "Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God." No. No. No.
How did you determine the prime mover was whichever god you happen to believe in? How did you eliminate universe creating pixies?? How did you eliminate every other god including Ra, Thor, Aquaman, and the Flying spaghetti monster??? How did you eliminate my personal favorite creators of the universe -- Universe Farting Unicorns ????
Every other god? I didn't propose a specific god to begin with. I didn't write these arguments. These are classical apologetics. Aquinas called the unmoved mover God. I'm inclined to agree that the unmoved mover must be a mind, but I never said it was completely divine. And I certainly never specified to one religion.
You couldn't argue your way out of a paper bag. Troll away
So that's your brilliant refutation? You just ad hom twice and pretend you're victorious?
Are you serious?
Radicalwhiggery: I am enjoying these discussions. If you were a troll I would have easily stumped you with a question about the air speed velocity of a coconut laden swal!ow. Carry on!
Thank you. I do find it odd that so many people are willing to dismiss their opposition as trolls.
Have to agree with you there.
I know I dissed you before on Aquaman (I mean - Really?). However your secondary proselytizing has worked and now I am a firm believer in Universe Farting Unicorns. UFU rules!
Your classical concept of motion (with the implication of precise positions) does not fit in with quantum mechanics, so in what way is your proof still valid?
3) A stationary gravitational field can impart motion. Doesn't this violate your claim that only an actual motion can convert a potential motion into motion? Ditto for a stationary electrical field. It can impart motion to a particle (or object) that has electrical charge.
5) Conservation of momentum says that if an object is in motion, there being no other forces acting on it, then it continues in motion. An object in motion is, in a very real sense, an object that continues to move itself.
7) As Nyarlathotep noted, this is really an assumption. An infinite regress negates this assumption. Your answer is that an infinite regress requires spanning an actual infinity. Infinity is a very subtle subject, so I could be wrong, but it seems to me that whatever point of time in the past that you choose, any point at all, you will find only a finite amount of time between it and the present. If you can't select any real point of time in the past that requires crossing an actual infinity, then where is the problem?
Your answer also assumes that there is no bottom floor in nature, above a philosophical nothing, which would necessarily have existed for all time. If empty space and quantum fluctuations are the bottom floor for nature, there being no possibility of a philosophical nothing, then it seems to me that any problems of an infinite regress are negated. You can't go below nature's bottom floor. Hence, the quantum fluctuations (if part of the bottom floor) would be the "prime mover" for motion (if it needs a prime mover).
8) In your conclusion you mysteriously arrive at an intelligent, living creator (just one). More logically, at least in tune with what we actually know, would be a non-intelligent, non-living source--most likely a part of nature itself.
So, you have a few, impromptu thoughts of mine that bear on this issue.
I agree that Aquinas didn't understand physics. I think efficient cause and necessity are better arguments. As far as why the prime mover must be a mind, that's an argument about the ontology of causation. When you say "part of nature", do you mean physical? Do you mean within the universe?
I don't see that you have answered my objections. Unless you are doing mathematics (or some exercise in purely deductive reasoning) you must begin with observation. By a "part of nature" I'm referring to some aspect of the real world of atoms and energy and anything that can affect the same. In particular, I had empty space and quantum fluctuations in mind, but other discoveries about nature no doubt await.
Why did you start this thread if you don't accept the argument? At the very least you could have had the courtesy to say right in the OP that the argument was dubious.
If there is yet any doubt, here is another point to consider. You can't stop atoms from vibrating. That's the nature of reality. Therefore, the idea that something started them moving (as though they could be still) is absurd!
So nothing started them moving? How is that coherent? They never began to move, but are moving now?