Christopher13

Silent Acorns, the proof is precisely about beings, beginning with the beings seen around us. Events are not at issue; events are not beings. The Prime Mover is a being. In the proof, something does not "happen" as you say. The existence of something is concluded from the existence of things around us. Besides, an "uncaused Big Bang" is, indeed, ruled out because the proof does not purport to demonstrate a real series of scientific causes traced back to an Uncaused Cause but a logical series demonstrating how any cause that exists demands this Uncaused Cause. Again, the only content thus far in the concept Prime Mover is that it is that (being) which is its own cause of movement, or that which has no moving cause. It is the intrinsic expansiveness of this idea that allows Thomas to say it agrees with men's idea of God. The Prime Mover is nowhere near being identified with the sun or anything else for that matter. Do not assign it any more a priori characteristics than is necessary.

Theli

Or several.
2 errors, as I've pointed out before, but please continue.
Oh, so despite all my claims and all my counterarguments that you either didn't read, or didn't care about, you know that people have ALWAYS believed in your god (in some vague sense, right?), and yet your god is the one true god.
Obviously this whole claim of yours has no basis in reality, but even if it were true it would still not prove that the universe was created by any type of god. People believed the earth was flat for a LONG time, but that didn't make it more true.
Noone's gonna admit anything, so I'm not worried.
Yes, and the mind (if believing it can find it) often tricks itself into believing it has discovered proof. If you are obsessed with finding evidence for UFO landings you will find evidence (vague evidence). If I had enough time and devoted myself into believing that I'm a carrot, I would probably find evidence (to please me) for that aswell. But such "evidence" doesn't last long in a debate, and neither will yours.
Yes, and I'm a carrot.
Eh... I think that ship has sailed long ago.
But thanks for trying.

Defiant Heretic

I don't know if anyone's mentioned this before, but there is a flaw in the required mover argument.

Magnets.

Place two magnets in close proximity to each other, with the north poles facing each other. You shall then have movement with no outside mover.

Christopher13

Diana, I hope you're still out there.
Theli, where to begin? You seem to think I have an axe to grind. This proof has nothing to do with anyone's specific notions about God. Pretend we're all pagans, and this is ancient Greece. Personally, I became acquainted with Aquinas through the works of some excellent 20th-century Thomists and have been persuaded that Thomism is the best philosophy around. I, too, struggled (and struggle) with the challenging concepts every beginner, like myself, must engage. I have read your posts and have been re-casting my arguments to address the concerns of the thread as best I can.
The trying thing about this is getting past the prejudice that I have anything vested in this proof because of my faith. If I weren't convinced of it, I wouldn't support it. And, if you can't follow this proof, add that to the evidence that maybe you're a carrot.

Theli

You keep calling this "proof", but what are you proving?

Wyz_sub10

Okay, taking god of out the equation...

In any case, the Prime Mover is a poor logical argument. It doesn't resolve anything.

For example, let me counter the existence of a Prime Mover by saying everything requires a mover, as infinitum.

How would you respond?

Silent Acorns

How did a thread about Nietzsche become a thread about Aquinas? Oh well ...

Christopher13, it seems that we have been mixing up Thomas' first and second ways to prove the existence of God (although, given that the two are alost exactly the same I don't think this is a big deal). From here:

andNow you say:

There is nothing in the first two ways that requires the first casue (or the first mover for that matter) to be a being of anykind except for Thomas' implying that said cause is a being.

Thomas' 3rd way (The Argument from Possibility to Necessity) proves God to be a being only because Thomas assumed that beings can't be contingent on non-beings, and modern science has shown that this assumption is doubtful at best.

Thomas' 4th way (The Argument to God's Existence from Gradation) is nothing more than defining God as "the best being in existence", and his assumption that "the maximum in any genus is the cause of all that is in that genus" is totally unsupported.

Thomas' 5th way is the argument from design, that design can only be achieved by intelligence. At a minimum, modern science has shown that this is only an assumption, and a highly debatable one at that.

So what do Thomas' ways prove? Numbers 1 and 2 prove that something happened once. Numbers 3 and 5 are conclusions based upon dubious assumptions. Number 4 is just a re-definition of God combined with another dubious assumption.

So, the only thing Thomas proved is that something happened once.

diana

Bien sur, mon ami. I was just letting everyone else lunch.

I'm afraid y'all are stuck with me, for better or for worse. Yes, that's right. Modding is much like marriage.

Or a menage a trois, as the case may be.

The mind must know what it is looking for before it can find it? You mean, I can't just be strolling through the woods and "find" a dead parachutist dangling from the tree limbs? I must be looking for it? Whatsay?

That's not how it works.

If the mind must know what it's looking for before it can find it, you'd never have learned anything upon which to build anything else. You'd have spent your life sucking your thumb, crying, drooling on yourself, eating pureed apples and shitting your diaper.

To define everything so as to so pointedly disinclude your "prime mover" is to stack the cards. What does "everything" mean to you, Christopher?

I see you've thus, in one fell swoop, made your argument non-falsifiable.

Shame.

And I had such high hopes for you.

Hm. What do you know? I'd agree. I think I know more than what I can directly sense. I also know what I can surmise rationally based upon the input of my senses.

So every movement requires a mover. Hm. Do you, by any chance, have a proof for this? I mean...it seems intuitive, but truth can be counter-intuitive.

You're facing precisely the same problem with positing a First Cause, you must admit. If everything requires a mover, then how do you reason that ANYTHING is exempt from this requirement?

It's a paradox.

Dropping a supreme being into the equasion introduces all sorts of nasty contradictions that weren't there before, and the paradox doesn't go away. I'm much more comfortable with just the paradox, thanks.

Simply asserting that every movement requires a mover does nothing to aid your problem, as this is inherently contradictory to your conclusion that therefore, This Being doesn't require a mover. You see the problem? (If you don't, I wonder why we're continuing this conversation, to be honest.)

Why did everything have to come from somewhere if "God" didn't have to? Makes no sense. It's favoritism on your part to decide Goddidit over "I don't know" or "it just happened." If God could have always been, so could everything have always been, including energy.

My inability to solve the paradox does not frighten me into assuming a God of the Gaps. I am quite content to simply shrug and say, "I don't know."

And you (or anyone) have yet to explain to me why, if God could "always have been," why couldn't matter and energy "always have been"? Occham's Razor, while not being a rule of logic, is still a reasonable tool. It would seem that something needs to have "always have been," yes? Why, when it's rational to posit that matter and energy do not die but simply transform, would I want to throw an inherently undefinable being into the equasion to "explain" it?

This baffles me.

You mean...nothing would now move, don't you? How'd you leap from "move" to "exist"? I missed that. Please perform that cartwheel a second time. I'll watch more closely this time around, I promise.

"All of this had to come from somewhere but God always existed."

Did I miss anything? Let me know if you don't see how internally inconsistent this position is, and I'll...well, I'm not sure I can explain it any better, but I might have a good chuckle with the lads, at least.

Christopher: But everybody's doing it, Ma!

Ma: If everybody were jumping off a cliff, would you, as well?

Christopher: Of course! The Appeal to Popularity is logical proof that this is the right thing to do!

Sarcasm aside, I think you'll find yourself in a tight spot were I to challenge you to support your assertion that "men have always and everywhere had a vague notion...of God." Always and everywhere? Do tell, oh omniscient one!

OK. Apparently I wasn't quite through being sarcastic. I'll try again. There are plenty of reasons people believe in a god or gods. How do you figure that their belief in god(s) is evidence that god(s) exist any more than my aunt's belief in closet monsters is evidence they exist?

Again, you have subtly made your position non-falsifiable. If I were to say, "No, actually, I don't know what is meant by 'god.' Please define it," you would take the position that I'm just being obstinate, yes?

I submit to you that I've yet to encounter any definition of "god" that makes sense to me. In this respect, I still have no idea what is meant by "god."

You seem to. I invite you to enlighten us.

Provide a proof that everything requires a mover, and that nothing can move without a mover. Make sure this proof does not clash with your proof that..."except God" and I'll get right on it.

And here I was thinking no one here would ever catch on to my real identity.

d

Christopher13

Theli, it's not my style to use smilies, but please imagine one at the end of my last carrot wisecrack. I know that you are still having problems with the initial stage of the proof when I quoted Aquinas:"Everything that moves is moved by another." This is posited upon the heels of making the act/potency distinction. But it is initially a matter of simple observation. Call it a theory if you want to, at first, but it is not an insurmountable contradiciton as you suppose. Better yet, forget the statement, and just say that things are seen to change. Then follows the metaphysical analysis, act/potency, . . . .
Wyz, everything does not require a mover ad infinitum as you propose. This is the point of the major premise. Without halting the series at a Prime Mover, there could be no subsequent movement.
Silent Acorns, the way you lay out the two proofs is okay, except for the hint that "pre-inertial physics" taints the first proof. (I have already mentioned that the proofs are identical for all practical purposes, largely because Aristotle understood the Prime Mover to move as a final cause, whereas we instantly understand change through efficient causes, thereby joining the two proofs.) Trusting you not to drag us deep into all five proofs, I will only say that you have unwarranted faith in science to tackle these proofs. It is beyond the competency of science to ask the why of the universe. This is a metaphysical question, and science takes the existence of things for granted. Besides, as Thomas employs these proofs, their validity does not rely on scientific illustrations. This is another thread, too.
As for your repeated objection that Aquinas is not talking about beings, the fact that the proof starts with natural observation should suggest to you that what is observed is the cause and effect in beings. The mind does not perceive cause and effect apart from actual existent subjects. Add to this that the notions of act and potency are about being. Again, events are not beings. The Big Bang, for example, can not be the Prime Mover. However, the truth in what you are suggesting is related to the question Aquinas asks after his five proofsoes God have a body?

Silent Acorns

That'll teach you to put a ":" right beside a "D"!