Hawkingfan

It is not reasonable to believe in anything you mentioned. There isn't even enough non-biblical proof to believe that Jesus ever existed. There is no physical proof of the miracles he performed. No historian from that time mentions them. It is heresay and anecdotes, just like the testimony of the disciples. Do you believe the "testimony" of Muhammed? There are plenty of other churches and religions that have endured longer than Christianity. Buddhism is one. Yet, you don't find Buddhism reasonable.
Since you have this all figured out, tell us--What was the first thing that moved? How exactly was it moved? Where was it prior to it's displacement? Where did it move to? How far did it move? What was the first consequence of it's movement? When did it move? Why?

Wyz_sub10

Sorry for my late reply...

The problem with introducing the Prime Mover is that it does not really "halt" anything.

The point of my question was to illustrate that an ad infinitum condition will exist one way or the other.

Either you argue that "movers" continue backwards indefinitely, or that a Prime Mover has existed indefinitely.

I think the latter is more platable to some people because a "being" is either to think of w/re: to infinity that "events" are. But really, neither makes more sense, logically speaking.

HRG

... that Aristoteles and Aquinas did not have at theor disposal:

- Set theory (showing that "actual/potential" is not a necessary category)

- the negative numbers (example of an ordered set without a first element)

- Newton's First Axiom

- nonlinear dynamical systems (cause not necessarily "adequate" for effect)

- quantum theory, notably Bell's inequality and vacuum polarization (existence of acausal events)

- non-Euclidean geometry and relativity (showing unreliability of philosophical a priori-thinking and metaphysical analysis)

- evolutionary psychology (projection of one's experience about one's self onto inanimate processes)

They cannot be blamed for ignoring this list. But people who want to resurrect their arguments - which needs philosophical necromancy, IMHO - can be blamed. Let the dead rest in peace.

Regards,
HRG.

Christopher13

Silent Acorns, I, like Aquinas, drink in moderation (I think).
HRG, in response to your points, 1) I would like you to clarify how the act/potency distinction is invalidated by set theory, 2) a series of mathematical symbols is irrelevant to this proof (Aquinas does not rule out infinity per se, only an infinity of causes), 3) Newton's First Axiom, as I indicated above, does change how we understand this proof today (since Aristotle believed a mover must always be at work on the moved) but Aquinas did not adopt all of Aristotle's peculiarities, 4) do you have in mind, perhaps, evolution?, 5) an acausal event sounds like an unmoved mover, 6) I would like to hear more about "unreliable" metaphysics, 7) I only have a popular acquaintance with the field. In short, your list is suggestive at least, but hardly the death knell of philosophy. You should not count out the metaphysics of Aristotle, Avicenna, Aquinas, and their successors because of the latest scientific theories. The rumors of the death of metaphysics have been exaggerated--for hundreds of years. But at least you are asking important questions. Metaphysical notions are always being refined, but your list does not make further nuances self-evident.
Wyz, thanks for your brief and coherent reply (I am having trouble making time to answer all these posts;I'm still playing catch up). If I understand your last sentences correctly, you're saying that I might be predisposed to accept the Prime Mover because it's like my idea of God. I certainly have an a priori notion of God because of my belief. I only say this again because some people might think I'm in denial. But this doesn't affect the proof. Again, I have no agenda. Aquinas merely chose five arguments he liked from pagan and religious philosophers and dismissed others that were incomplete. I am arguing this proof only because it works, though obviously Aquinas needs more background for today's listener. There is an observed series of effects. I reason back to posit their cause which I am forced, because the series cannot be infinite, to say is Uncaused. This is all. Of course, to be an Uncaused Cause is mysterious, but not preposterous. To exist--and here we have the key to all of Aquinas' causal proofs--without a sufficient reason for one's existence is the real absurdity. That being is intelligible is what Aquinas calls the absolutley first principle of understanding. One's very use of language presupposes this. Wyz, where you are on to something with your remark that infinity remains a problem, is that I have not discussed how the possibly multiple Prime Movers are reduced to one. I have already admitted this. Aristotle, for example, came to think that there were 55 Prime Movers.
But I am not touching the multiple subsequent proofs of Aquinas in this thread. This one is enough.
Hawkingfan, I don't need to know the first thing that moved, only that Something moved which was itself unmoved is a necessary postulate. I suggest that you not read so much of the other Hawking.
For Theli, I say that your paraphrase of the argument is incorrect. Everything needs a mover . . . God does not:this is not the paradox Diana speaks of. God, for one thing, does not Move. The Prime Mover is unmoved. Again, the proof is basically saying, on the way to building its major premise, that things need to have a reason for why they are the way they are. If A is thus, how did it get to be so? In the case of motion or becoming, what caused A to move? What caused its cause to move or change? And so on, but not ad infinitum. Therefore, Prime Mover/Cause. . . .

HRG

Not invalidated. Shown to be unnecessary. Set theory demonstrates how we can think about only actual infinities, without contradiction-

Because he couldn't really imagine an infinite ordered set without a first element, and thought that there had to be some "cause of the whole set. He regarded it as a contradiction if every element was caused (and every finite subset had a common cause), but there was no first cause. It isn't.

IOW, the finite number of causes is just a postulate of Aquinas', and reality isn't bound even by what a brilliant scholar like Aquinas can or cannot conceive.

"Prime mover" and "first cause" are essentially equivalent, IMO
Not necessarily; any generic nonlinear system will do. See "butterfly effect". Thus events or objects do not need "sufficient reasons".
The point is that gazillions of acausal events are going on every second. There is no unique "first, hence unmoved mover".

It also draws into question Aquinas' postulate that existence needs a reason. It seems that on the quantum level, events just happen, and only statistical statements remain. Macroscopic being may be intelligible (it is the result of averaging), but individual microscopic being isn't necessarily.

Take 100 identical pions (and we have excellent reasons to state that all pions are identical). 99 decay into muon + neutrino, 1 decays into electron and neutrino. It just happened.

Euclidean geometry was the main example of the existence of synthetic a prioris. Similarly, causality - metaphysical bedrock, as it were - is made rather doubtful by quantum theory. Relativity of time is another example.

See, in addition, Wittgenstein's Tractatus.

Not wanting to be nit-picky, but most of the stuff I've mentioned has been around for at least 50 years.
I'm not sounding the death knell of philosophy per se. There are lots of important philosophical work going on these last 100 years. But those works that ignore the progress of natural science IMHO are the equivalent of a commentary on a legal code which has already been repealed.

regards,
HRG.

Hawkingfan

Oh, yes you do. You have absolutely no leg to stand on if you cannot tell us what was the first thing that moved, how exactly it was moved, where it was prior to its displacement, where it moved to, how far it moved, what was the first consequence of its movement, when it moved, and why. Otherwise, saying "Something moved which was itself unmoved," is just a lot of hot air and logically invalid. Because if there is a finite number of causes, you could start with the most recent and work your way back to the first cause. So lets see it. Otherwise, we can conclude there is no finite number of causes and no first cause.

Silent Acorns

Glad to see you back Chris, but dissapointed by your "reply" to my last post. If I offended you with my sarcasm, I'm sorry. I'll try to cut back. Where you left off:

OK, a being is an "individual existent" and events aren't. How does this answer the question: "why can only beings cause things to occur?", which is an inherant assumption of Aquinas' proofs.
What we are all trying to say is that one is NOT enough. Aquinas' 2nd way just assumes:

1) there is only one uncaused cause,
2) that this cause was a being, and
3) that this being is Yahweh.

In order for Aquinas' argument to be a proof you must show that these three assumptions are all true.

diana

Christopher,

Your "handwave" over my painstaking rebuttal does nothing to refute it.

If you wish to be taken seriously, you're going to have to try harder.

Simply saying "There's no paradox" does nothing to establish that there is, in fact, no paradox.

As I said before, if you define "everything" (as used in, "everything that moves is moved by another") so that it necessarily does not include God, you have thus PRESUPPOSED THE VERY GOD YOU ARE ATTEMPTING TO PROVE.

To be just a teensy bit clearer here: You can't possibly define everything (in this context) sans God unless you first assume BOTH THE EXISTENCE OF GOD AND THAT HE IS NOT MOVED BY ANOTHER.

That's another assumption you're making, by the way, that also begs the question of your proof: the assertion/assumption itself that God is not moved. You must assume this to use it in this proof, and your proof itself rests upon this assumption.

Have you got it yet?

You're begging the question six times from Sunday here. It's more than once. Your "proof" is simply crawling with question begging.

Begging the question is still a fallacy. That is, it is illogical.

You're still comfortably within the ranks of irrational theists. Just as with your simple dismissal of my rebuttal, simply asserting that you are a "rational theist" does not make it so. You must prove it.

We're waiting.

d

Angrillori

Here's my take on this whole first cause bit. It's bothered me since high school when I first encountered it.

It always starts as:
Everything we see has a cause.

Therefore:
Either
1) There is an infinite regression
or
2) Something broke the rule at one time.

And ends as:
As a theist, I choose 2, and label whatever it was that broke the rule 'God.'

Here are my concerns:
A) Isn't there at least a third possibility? As we learn more and more of quantum theory doesn't it seem reasonable that time and space started together? In that case, there was no 'before' the universe to speak of so we negate the need for a first cause yet also avoid infinite recursion.

B) While we can choose to label our 'rule-breaking event,' 'god', I don't see this argument as allowing any atribution to 'god' other than the ability to not need a cause. In other words, even if we accept #2, all we have is something that doesn't need a cause. The leap from this something to any of the gods we know and love seems unjustified, merely an assertion or assumption.

C) Who says we should avoid an infinite regression? Is there any good reason that the universe hasn't been expanding and contracting forever and ever?

And finally,

D) Who says the rule is valid in the first place? Isn't quantum theory chock full of spontaneous random events? (On a related note, are these 'rule-breaking events' god? Are they the christian god? This is a great demonstration of concern B, above.)

Jobar

Well said, Angrillori (neat name, BTW.)

Christopher, in a very real way, there "is" nothing but movement. I've heard physicists describe particles as "tiny twists of twirling nothingness". (Poetic, no?) Movement is energy, and by Einstein's famous equivalency, matter is too. So talking about movement in the way you and Aquinas attempt to is not a valid way to model the real universe.