Hi, EvilAtheist,
Now, honestly … we really do have to stay in the real world if we are going to get anywhere. The examples you give, from theoretical physics, are … just that… theoretical!
There were not many subjects i dreaded in college … but, physics managed to push almost all of my buttons!
Originally Posted by tqualey
**1. Observation of motion: Everything that is moved is moved by something else. Things are moved by other things and these things are moved by still others - but, this can not go on infinitely because there would be be no first mover – and this all men know as God. **
I actually think this is pretty similar to the efficient causation argument. It says that there must be a cause for all motion. This appears to be true at the everyday level of observation. But I think there are good reasons, both logical and empirical, for doubting whether this must be true in all cases. Research into quantum physics indicates that there are virtual particles which appear for brief periods of time, and for which there is no cause of their behavior. Also, there are scenarios outside of quantum physics in which motion could happen without cause. If the universe was a singularity at one point, it would have been incredibly unstable, and perhaps there is some analog to the previous scenario. I’m definitely not an expert on this, but I just haven’t heard any good reasons to think that our intuitions about motion and causation must hold at the extremely small scale as well (and this is the scale that is relevant to discussions of the universe’s origin).
One other thing is that I never really understood why there had to be a first mover. For example, I could envision a universe that has been constantly changing between two different states for eternity.
Here is the problem - and, it is not with your imagination, for obviously, you can imagine anything you want!
If you do not restrict yourself to simple reality that is readily testable, we will be forever chasing the possibly possible cause - in a simply effort to ‘disprove’ common experience. It is as if to say, “If I can imagine I have won this argument by imagining something - then, I have won it with mere imagining!” But, real debates are not won with theoretical proofs.
A long time ago on a Walt Disney show, I saw a large table filled with mouse traps that had been all set - and a ping-pong ball placed as the ‘bait’ in each trap. We have all of this potential energy just waiting tor the Announcer to take the one ping-pong ball in his hand and toss it onto the table. Well the ball landing on the first trap, immediately set it off and the violent reaction of the first trap set off several other taps and as the balls went flying and the traps went moving, more and more traps were sprung. Now, while it is convenient for the Announcer to be seen as the “First Mover” - he really isn’t. All of those traps had to be painstakingly set with a ping-pong ball being carefully placed in the bait section!
Your comments, ‘moved’ me to write in response to what you said. My comments ‘moved’ you to respond, and so on … back and forth. But, to imagine an infinite number of comments simply because you think this disproves the argument is just not logical. Something can be taken to ‘infinity -1’ … but, then the argument simply stops because there is no one less then infinity (if there was, then why not infinity + 1 … and if that is so, there is no infinity!
Seriously, motion is all around us, and as we watch, we see other things being effected and begining their own motion. Seconds change into minutes and they in turn change to hours and then days, weeks and so on. But to take time as just an example - it is finite: a second is just so long and no longer - any longer and it becomes the beginnig of the second second.
The argument ultimately rests on nothing - at least in the real world with which we have common experience - being able to perpetuate itself forever. The projections are for our world to eventually slow down to a stop, and, on a larger scale, for the universe to no longer hold together. It is all depends on something else to keep it moving. This post may inspire you to respond back - it may also inspire others to respond - but, eventually, we will run out of both responses and responders. And, this is the common experience.
In an infinite chain of causes, it would still be true that if one of the causes was removed, the effect would be removed. So it seems like it would be possible for there to be an infinite series of causes, whether or not there’s a God. Of course there’s still the question of why the sequence of causes itself exists. Whether you say that the sequence exists because God exists, or because the universe exists, you’re still left with the question of why there is something (God and/or the universe) rather than nothing. I don’t think this is any more answerable under theism than under atheism.
I think this is an interesting observation. We did not have to exist - to be brought into existence. There is no logical progression, given “a” there must necessarily follow that there is a ‘b’… or, substitute ‘a’ and ‘b’ for ‘!’ AND ‘@’ if that gets us out of the alaphabet sequencing approach. The ‘Unmoved Mover’ (God
) moved us into existence - and He did not have to do this. Given that there are ‘creatures’ there must be a ‘Creator’. or said differently, given clay pots there must be a pot maker quite different from the pots he has made!
God bless
). I just find the atheist arguments more compelling overall. I really would welcome proof (or near proof) of Christianity if someone had it. I think I might even enjoy being a Christian. But I just can’t trick myself into believing something that I think is false.