(1) Everything in the material world is in motion.
(2) If something is in motion, then it must be caused to be in motion by something outside of itself.
(3) There can be no infinite chain of movers/movees.
(4) So there is a first, unmoved mover; He moves, but out of His own will.
(5) Therefore, the Supreme or Ultimate Reality exists.

Cause is also quite similar (Aristotle and Aquinas)

(1) In the material world everything has a cause. One who cannot see the cause says “chance”.
(2) The effects must be caused by something outside of itself.
(3) There can be no infinite cause/effect chains.
(4) As a person can’t walk on quicksand.
(5) So, there is a first, uncaused Cause.
(6) Therefore, the Supreme or Ultimate Reality exists.

(1) Everything in the material world is in motion.
(2) If something is in motion, then it must be caused to be in motion by something outside of itself.
(3) There can be no infinite chain of movers/movees.
(4) So there is a first, unmoved mover; He moves, but out of His own will.
(5) Therefore, the Supreme or Ultimate Reality exists.


1) Take out the word 'material' and I'll buy that.
2) Atoms disagree.
3) Why?
4) N/A because of 2 and probably 3.
5) N/A because of 4

1) Take out the word 'material' and I'll buy that.
2) Atoms disagree.


and guess what happens (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_chromodynamics) when you enter into the complexities of atoms

(1) Everything in the material world is in motion.

Might be better expressed as: all material things are in motion.

(2) If something is in motion, then it must be caused to be in motion by something outside of itself.

No. See Newton's first law of motion.

(3) There can be no infinite chain of movers/movees.

Can't see the relevance of this, and it is not obvious that it must be true anyway.

(4) So there is a first, unmoved mover; He moves, but out of His own will.

You seem to be deriving a personality for this "mover" from somewhere. Where, I don't know.

(5) Therefore, the Supreme or Ultimate Reality exists.

Doesn't follow from above.


Cause is also quite similar (Aristotle and Aquinas)

(1) In the material world everything has a cause. One who cannot see the cause says “chance”.

Disproven by quantum physics.

(2) The effects must be caused by something outside of itself.

Meaningless, unless you can make it specific.

(3) There can be no infinite cause/effect chains.

Prove it.

(4) As a person can’t walk on quicksand.

And butterflies don't play golf...

(5) So, there is a first, uncaused Cause.

Need to establish (3) first.

(6) Therefore, the Supreme or Ultimate Reality exists.

Doesn't follow from the above. Non-sequitur.

JamesR

“
(2) If something is in motion, then it must be caused to be in motion by something outside of itself.
”
No. See Newton's first law of motion.
Yes. See Newton's third law

“
(3) There can be no infinite chain of movers/movees.
”
Can't see the relevance of this, and it is not obvious that it must be true anyway.


if movement is due to a cause outside of oneself, it should be obvious

“
(4) So there is a first, unmoved mover; He moves, but out of His own will.
”
You seem to be deriving a personality for this "mover" from somewhere. Where, I don't know.
personality, is not really an issue at this point - (although you could ponder it further, whether independence is possible without the medium of consciousness)



“
Cause is also quite similar (Aristotle and Aquinas)

(1) In the material world everything has a cause. One who cannot see the cause says “chance”.
”
Disproven by quantum physics.
perhaps it would be more correct to say that quantum physics theorizes that this can be disproven ...

“
(2) The effects must be caused by something outside of itself.
”
Meaningless, unless you can make it specific.
can you specify some effect that is non-different from the cause?
:confused:

“
(3) There can be no infinite cause/effect chains.
”
Prove it.

“
(4) As a person can’t walk on quicksand.
”
And butterflies don't play golf...
:rolleyes:

if there were infinite cause/effect chains, walking on quicksand wouldn't be so predictable

(1) Everything in the material world is in motion.
(2) If something is in motion, then it must be caused to be in motion by something outside of itself.
(3) There can be no infinite chain of movers/movees.
(4) So there is a first, unmoved mover; He moves, but out of His own will.
(5) Therefore, the Supreme or Ultimate Reality exists.

The problem with this argument is that even if you accept it as valid (and many people have pointed out problems with it), you haven’t accomplished anything more than proving that there was some original source of energy/motion in the universe. It doesn’t imply anything about that source – there’s no reason to believe that such a source had to be a conscious entity that did things deliberately. Maybe it was some sort of random quantum vacuum fluctuation, or some sort of other unfathomable process/event that doesn’t have anything to do with “god.”

and guess what happens (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_chromodynamics) when you enter into the complexities of atoms

The interaction of the atoms constituents is not an external factor (it's an internal one). Also, atom-sized entities and smaller are all in a superposition flux. If you could shrink down to the size of a quark and watch it, you would see that it is a blur of superposition.

The problem with this argument is that even if you accept it as valid (and many people have pointed out problems with it), you haven’t accomplished anything more than proving that there was some original source of energy/motion in the universe. It doesn’t imply anything about that source – there’s no reason to believe that such a source had to be a conscious entity that did things deliberately. Maybe it was some sort of random quantum vacuum fluctuation, or some sort of other unfathomable process/event that doesn’t have anything to do with “god.”

IMO, his argument broke down at 2). Actually, come to think of it, it broke down before 1). He made a conclusion "'God' exists" and is attempting to find evidence for it... rather than the other way around.

(1) Everything in the material world is in motion.Please can you define what you mean by "motion".

All motion is relative - so what are you using as your frame of reference?

no-thing really moves because, just like in movie, the pictures have no time to move because the zero-duration-present-moment is all there is. if real motion existed, we wouldn't need to make our movies of pictures, we could make "real motion".

but even though everything is relative/illusion, it must still have been caused by something, and the only thing that can cause anything is no-thing.

The problem with this argument is that even if you accept it as valid (and many people have pointed out problems with it), you haven’t accomplished anything more than proving that there was some original source of energy/motion in the universe. It doesn’t imply anything about that source – there’s no reason to believe that such a source had to be a conscious entity that did things deliberately. Maybe it was some sort of random quantum vacuum fluctuation, or some sort of other unfathomable process/event that doesn’t have anything to do with “god.”

what it does indicate about the source (at (3) ) is that the ultimate cause of motion must be something that is beyond the constraints of material laws (ie independent) - and consciousness, particularly that of god's fulfills this criteria

(BTW a syllogism is not an argument for evidence but an argument of logic))

The interaction of the atoms constituents is not an external factor (it's an internal one). Also, atom-sized entities and smaller are all in a superposition flux. If you could shrink down to the size of a quark and watch it, you would see that it is a blur of superposition.

of course there are many suppositions on why atoms behave the way they do, but until they are solved, you can not say that they are examples of something that is moving for reasons that are not external ( as it remains at the moment, they are examples of things that move for reasons not fully understood - to say more than that wouldn't be science)

IMO, his argument broke down at 2). Actually, come to think of it, it broke down before 1). He made a conclusion "'God' exists" and is attempting to find evidence for it... rather than the other way around.

the only criteria for a syllogism is that it is logically credible - pursuing the truth of the matter is something else (in other words before one undertakes the pursuit for evidence, they generally search for logical possibilities)

Please can you define what you mean by "motion".

All motion is relative - so what are you using as your frame of reference?

making that statement supports (1) as opposed to challenging it

no-thing really moves because, just like in movie, the pictures have no time to move because the zero-duration-present-moment is all there is.
physics disagrees
so do people who have been hit by cars

if real motion existed, we wouldn't need to make our movies of pictures, we could make "real motion".
:confused:

but even though everything is relative/illusion,
everything is illusion for as long as it is relative to relative things

it must still have been caused by something,
hence the cause is not relative

and the only thing that can cause anything is no-thing.
the only thing that can cause anything is the source of everything
- describing it as nothing certainly doesn't explain how one arrived at the position of something (0+0=0)

LG,

the only thing that can cause anything is the source of everythingExcept if the universe is infinitely cyclic or simply infinite. Which fits well with observations like - every action has an equal and opposite reaction, and nothing is ever created or destroyed just transformed form one state to another.

LG,

Except if the universe is infinitely cyclic or simply infinite.
no arguments against that here, but it doesn't explain the cause of such cycles (ie motion)

LG,

no arguments against that here, but it doesn't explain the cause of such cycles (ie motion)Why must there be a cause? In an infinite cycle a cause has no meaning.

You cant 'prove' god in this way, many great minds have tried and failed.
Youre better off with faith imo.

no arguments against that here, but it doesn't explain the cause of such cycles (ie motion)

How would you explain the cause of the cause?

making that statement supports (1) as opposed to challenging itWhere am I challenging it? :eek:
All I have asked you to do is define your notion of "motion" - which I note you have singularly failed to do. Please have the decency to now define what you mean by "motion".

Then, once you have defined that - please indicate the reference frame that you are using.


This latter request in no way supports (1). You claim ALL objects are in motion.
My comment is that ALL MOTION is relative.

So please indicate where the commen that ALL MOTION IS RELATIVE supports your claim that ALL OBJECTS ARE IN MOTION.

You fail in your logic again, LG.


Now please just have the decency to answer the questions asked of you.:rolleyes:

of course there are many suppositions on why atoms behave the way they do, but until they are solved, you can not say that they are examples of something that is moving for reasons that are not external ( as it remains at the moment, they are examples of things that move for reasons not fully understood - to say more than that wouldn't be science)

I can say there is no evidence that atoms are moving becuase of something external and there is evidence that they are moving because of something internal; otherwise, I agree.

the only criteria for a syllogism is that it is logically credible - pursuing the truth of the matter is something else (in other words before one undertakes the pursuit for evidence, they generally search for logical possibilities)

If the premise chain has no concrete starting points then syllogism isn't grounded to reality.

Might the nett movement in the universe be zero ?

Defining the Supreme - motionthe one I did this morning after last night's curry, Wow!
that was the motion of all motions, a good half hour jobby.

the one I did this morning after last night's curry, Wow!
that was the motion of all motions, a good half hour jobby.

if it compares to your posts, I can imagine ...

LG,

Why must there be a cause? In an infinite cycle a cause has no meaning.
its the contribution of the cause that makes it continuous- for instance remove the heart beat from a person, and the cycle of respiration is finished

You cant 'prove' god in this way, many great minds have tried and failed.
Youre better off with faith imo.

faith begins the process, yes, and moving to that point may require a logical argument or two ...

How would you explain the cause of the cause?
that's the point of the OP

the nature of things indicates something that is causeless

Where am I challenging it? :eek:
All I have asked you to do is define your notion of "motion" - which I note you have singularly failed to do. Please have the decency to now define what you mean by "motion".

not required

you have already said that all things are moving

I can say there is no evidence that atoms are moving becuase of something external and there is evidence that they are moving because of something internal; otherwise, I agree.
if one cannot discern the cause of movement, how can you discern whether it is external or internal?

If the premise chain has no concrete starting points then syllogism isn't grounded to reality.
(1) Everything in the material world is in motion.

true or false?

you have already said that all things are movingWHERE???
I have NOT said that all things are moving.

You are being blatantly dishonest, LG.:mad:

Now answer the question!!
DEFINE what you mean by MOTION!

WHERE???
I have NOT said that all things are moving.

You are being blatantly dishonest, LG.:mad:

Now answer the question!!
DEFINE what you mean by MOTION!

yes you did

All motion is relative

if you required a definition of motion, you wouldn't make such statements

what it does indicate about the source (at (3) ) is that the ultimate cause of motion must be something that is beyond the constraints of material laws (ie independent) - and consciousness, particularly that of god's fulfills this criteria
Like I said, you have only "proven" that there is (or was) some source of motion that is able to move without first being moved itself. You don't demonstrate that this hypothetical thing that can move without first being moved itself is conscious, has a will, or any of the other things that you associate with god. Perhaps this "first mover" had no consciousness or will, and simply flung motion into the rest of the universe randomly. There's no reason to assume that the "first mover" was any sort of entity.

if one cannot discern the cause of movement, how can you discern whether it is external or internal?

Who said that the cause of movement cannot be discerned? Take people for example. If I push you then you moved due to an external cause (My energy was translated into work that moved you). If you moved on your own then your own internal energy translated into work that moved you.


(1) Everything in the material world is in motion.

true or false?

True, and there is a huge gap of absent grounding between 1) and 2).

yes you did

if you required a definition of motion, you wouldn't make such statementsJust answer the question, LG.:mad:

1. I have not said that all things are moving - just that all motion is relative. If you continue to state that I have said that all things are moving then YOU need to provide evidence of where I have said it - which you won't be able to do.

2. My understanding of "motion" is probably different to yours - hence YOU NEED TO DEFINE WHAT YOU MEAN BY "MOTION".

Anything else is just a continuation of your blatant disrespectful dishonesty that is endearing you to noone but your own fallacious sense of arrgogant self-importance.

Like I said, you have only "proven" that there is (or was) some source of motion that is able to move without first being moved itself. You don't demonstrate that this hypothetical thing that can move without first being moved itself is conscious, has a will, or any of the other things that you associate with god.
it is demonstrated how it isn't matter, however

Perhaps this "first mover" had no consciousness or will, and simply flung motion into the rest of the universe randomly.
perhaps, but such a thing wouldn't be rational, or at least within our realm of experience - all causes of motion can be seen to be due to one of two things
1) consciousness
2) something we don't understand

There's no reason to assume that the "first mover" was any sort of entity.
there's no reason to think that the "first mover" was any sort of matter

Who said that the cause of movement cannot be discerned? Take people for example. If I push you then you moved due to an external cause (My energy was translated into work that moved you). If you moved on your own then your own internal energy translated into work that moved you.
now you just have to locate the source of consciousness (after all, if you were dead, you couldn't push me, and if I was dead, I couldn't move on my own accord - further examination is required to discern what it is that a living person has that a dead person doesn't ????)



True, and there is a huge gap of absent grounding between 1) and 2).
the only way you could demonstrate that it wasn't rational, would be to provide evidence of something that moves independently

There are so many conceptual problems here that I don’t even really know where to start. Maybe someone who is feeling more motivated could take the time to explain it.

(1) Everything in the material world is in motion.
no its not,and even if it was so what

(2) If something is in motion, then it must be caused to be in motion by something outside of itself.
such as gravity maybe?
or to be honest we would have to say UNKNOWN forces.

(3) There can be no infinite chain of movers/movees.
why not? could be bazillions of them

(4) So there is a first, unmoved mover; He moves, but out of His own will.
not necesarily,even if there was,why wouldnt HE need a mover?
(btw HOW do you know its a HE???)...

(5) Therefore, the Supreme or Ultimate Reality exists.
just b/c reality ie universe exist,that dont prove god,
been reading the old retard Aquinas ,have you?

Cause is also quite similar (Aristotle and Aquinas)

(1) In the material world everything has a cause. One who cannot see the cause says “chance”.
(2) The effects must be caused by something outside of itself.
(3) There can be no infinite cause/effect chains.
(4) As a person can’t walk on quicksand.
(5) So, there is a first, uncaused Cause.
(6) Therefore, the Supreme or Ultimate Reality exists.
if god exists,
and everything has a cause
WHAT caused God??

scorpius
“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
(1) Everything in the material world is in motion.
”
no its not
what is there that isn't in motion?


“
(2) If something is in motion, then it must be caused to be in motion by something outside of itself.
”
such as gravity maybe?
if its moving because of gravity, it would be moving because of something outside of itself

or to be honest we would have to say UNKNOWN forces.
thats ok
“
(3) There can be no infinite chain of movers/movees.
”
why not? could be bazillions of them
if that would be true, predicting cause and effect would tend to not be so predictable
“
(4) So there is a first, unmoved mover; He moves, but out of His own will.
”
not necesarily,even if there was,why wouldnt HE need a mover?
(btw HOW do you know its a HE???)...
see point three
as for the HE thing, it sufficient for now to talk of active as opposed to passive principles
“
(5) Therefore, the Supreme or Ultimate Reality exists.
”
just b/c reality ie universe exist,that dont prove god,
been reading the old retard Aquinas ,have you?
I see

Aquinas was wrong because you called him a "retard"

forgive me for not being convinced .....
“
Cause is also quite similar (Aristotle and Aquinas)

(1) In the material world everything has a cause. One who cannot see the cause says “chance”.
(2) The effects must be caused by something outside of itself.
(3) There can be no infinite cause/effect chains.
(4) As a person can’t walk on quicksand.
(5) So, there is a first, uncaused Cause.
(6) Therefore, the Supreme or Ultimate Reality exists.
”
if god exists,
and everything has a cause
WHAT caused God??
if there is an infinite chain of cause and effects, how is that there is a degree of predictability in this world (like for instance petrol fumes are flammable, tree leaves fall to the ground and not into outer space etc etc)

Hi LG,
Made simpler, the argument is:

1) Everything that moves must have a moving mover
2) There can't be an infinite chain of movers
3) Therefore there must be something that moved without a mover

But 3) contradicts 1). So which one is false? Note that the argument is not a syllogism, by the way.


A more logical argument would be:

Movement exists.
If it is assumed that there is no infinite chain of movers or causes, then...
There must have been at least one case in which movement occured without a mover.

Now, assuming the truth of the assumption (no infinite chain), the argument does not show that there was only one prime mover, nor does it attach any other attributes to that prime mover, unless you make other unspecified assumptions (eg "material laws prohibit unmoved movers", or "Only God can be a prime mover")

I am still waiting for an answer, LG.
Please have the decency to provide one.

Hi LG,
Made simpler, the argument is:

1) Everything that moves must have a moving mover
the original was that "everything in the material world moves"


2) There can't be an infinite chain of movers
3) Therefore there must be something that moved without a mover

But 3) contradicts 1). So which one is false? Note that the argument is not a syllogism, by the way.
god introduces the concept of duality - namely that he is unique because he is the foundation of the material world (as opposed to his foundation being in the material world)
hence there is no problem between 1 and 3


A more logical argument would be:

Movement exists.
If it is assumed that there is no infinite chain of movers or causes, then...
There must have been at least one case in which movement occured without a mover.

Now, assuming the truth of the assumption (no infinite chain), the argument does not show that there was only one prime mover, nor does it attach any other attributes to that prime mover, unless you make other unspecified assumptions (eg "material laws prohibit unmoved movers", or "Only God can be a prime mover")
hmmmm

I will get back to this a bit later perhaps

but just off the top of my head, if one advocates the possibility of there being several prime movers, they must be unified in some fashion, since the definition doesn't allow for one prime mover (A) to move another (B) and still enable (B) to be classified as a prime mover

I am still waiting for an answer, LG.
Please have the decency to provide one.


I've got nothing to post other than what is already said

and the same seems to be true of yourself ......
:shrug:

god introduces the concept of duality - namely that he is unique because he is the foundation of the material world (as opposed to his foundation being in the material world)
hence there is no problem between 1 and 3
Of course there is a problem. The two statements:
"Everything that moves must have a moving mover"
"There must be something that moved without a mover"
Are directly contradictory. If the first is true, the second is false, and vice versa.
Introducing a "material world" limitation is a red herring, adding needless complexity... either way, there must be at least one thing that moved without a mover (again, assuming the "no infinite chain" clause). Whether it/they exist in the material world or not is a separate question... and possibly irrelevant, since it seems a matter of arbitrary definition whether or not something is considered to exist in the material world.

but just off the top of my head, if one advocates the possibility of there being several prime movers, they must be unified in some fashion, since the definition doesn't allow for one prime mover (A) to move another (B) and still enable (B) to be classified as a prime mover
If A moved B, then B wouldn't be a prime mover.
If there were several prime movers, then each would have moved without a mover, independently of the others.

Pete
“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
god introduces the concept of duality - namely that he is unique because he is the foundation of the material world (as opposed to his foundation being in the material world)
hence there is no problem between 1 and 3
”
Of course there is a problem. The two statements:
"Everything that moves must have a moving mover"

"There must be something that moved without a mover"

not if god has recourse to something outside of matter as indicated above



Introducing a "material world" limitation is a red herring, adding needless complexity... either way, there must be at least one thing that moved without a mover (again, assuming the "no infinite chain" clause).
If one states that all matter moves due to some cause outside of itself, and if god has recourse to something that is not matter, there is no problem

Of course you are adopting the foundation of classical empiricism, namely that all and everything can be defined as matter

Whether it/they exist in the material world or not is a separate question... and possibly irrelevant, since it seems a matter of arbitrary definition whether or not something is considered to exist in the material world.
the foundation of classical empiricism is also arbitrary

as for defining god as existing within and without the material world, that is the standard definition

SB 1.3.36: The Lord, whose activities are always spotless, is the master of the six senses and is fully omnipotent with six opulences. He creates the manifested universes, maintains them and annihilates them without being in the least affected. He is within every living being and is always independent.

“
but just off the top of my head, if one advocates the possibility of there being several prime movers, they must be unified in some fashion, since the definition doesn't allow for one prime mover (A) to move another (B) and still enable (B) to be classified as a prime mover
”
If A moved B, then B wouldn't be a prime mover.
If there were several prime movers, then each would have moved without a mover, independently of the others.
and if one prime mover encountered another prime mover, what would happen?

LG,
If something moves without a mover (matter or not), then this statement:
"Everything that moves must have a moving mover" is clearly false.

Claiming that God is the only thing that can move without a mover is not supported by the argument.

If one states that all matter moves due to some cause outside of itself, and if god has recourse to something that is not matter, there is no problem
If the Universe is not composed solely of matter, there is no problem.

Do you see that the argument doesn't actually say anything about God unless you assume that God is the only prime mover?

and if one prime mover encountered another prime mover, what would happen?
That would depend on the properties of the prime movers, about which the argument is uninformative.
Also, the argument doesn't say that a prime mover can't be moved by another mover... it only says that a prime mover doesn't have to have a mover.

I've got nothing to post other than what is already saidAnd what you have said says nothing and answers nothing of the questions asked of you - but speaks volumes of you.

Your argument has been found wanting.
You deliberately avoid questions - as you seem to lack the decency to either provide answers or to admit that you don't have one.
Further you deliberately misquote people and make false claims of their statements.

Now - maybe I'm wrong.
You could go a long way to demonstrating that quite simply by answering the following question - that I have asked several times and that you have so far avoided answering:

Please define "motion" as presented in your argument.

lightgigantic gravity will cause things that are not moving to begin moving. In fact, any force (electromagnetism, gravity, whatever) can cause something to move. Are you going to propose that gravity is an entity now?

lightgigantic gravity will cause things that are not moving to begin moving. In fact, any force (electromagnetism, gravity, whatever) can cause something to move. Are you going to propose that gravity is an entity now?
no

but it is sufficient to suggest that these forces belong to some object



LG,
If something moves without a mover (matter or not), then this statement:
"Everything that moves must have a moving mover" is clearly false.
therefore the opener actually reads

(1) Everything in the material world is in motion.



Claiming that God is the only thing that can move without a mover is not supported by the argument.
if god is not inherently composed of matter - in the material reductionist sense, the problem doesn't arise


If the Universe is not composed solely of matter, there is no problem.

Do you see that the argument doesn't actually say anything about God unless you assume that God is the only prime mover?
and the problems of accepting that matter is the prime mover (ie there is an infinite series of cause and effects) is more agreeable?


That would depend on the properties of the prime movers, about which the argument is uninformative.
logically it must be singular (unless one wants to accept that there is an infinite series of cause and effects - which would make working with physics more fruitless than watercolour painting on ice cubes in summer)

Also, the argument doesn't say that a prime mover can't be moved by another mover... it only says that a prime mover doesn't have to have a mover.
it does say that it is illogical to accept an infinite series of cause and effects in universal affairs

Its infinitely more logical than to assume a God did it...

Its infinitely more logical than to assume a God did it...
according to what body of infinite knowledge do you make such statements?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/75/Duck_of_Vaucanson.jpg

:crazy:

according to what body of infinite knowledge do you make such statements?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/75/Duck_of_Vaucanson.jpg

:crazy:

I could ask you the same.
At least 'my' claim has its basis in science, yours is based on nothing.

I could ask you the same.
At least 'my' claim has its basis in science, yours is based on nothing.

for statements like these

Its infinitely more logical than to assume a God did it...

it does not have a basis in science

it has a basis in nonsense