Does subconscious activity debunk the First Mover argument?

[WannabeSaint]

The First Mover Argument shows that the world couldn’t just pop into existence. A conscious entity (the mover) had to act (move) in order to cause that popping existence (movement)

I have a question regarding this though. Our subconscious, which is a non-conscious being, acts and moves without any control from us.

Wouldn’t this mean that a movement can be moved without a conscious mover (God)?

 

[Vico]

The First Mover Argument shows that the world couldn’t just pop into existence. A conscious entity (the mover) had to act (move) in order to cause that popping existence (movement)

I have a question regarding this though. Our subconscious, which is a non-conscious being, acts and moves without any control from us.

Wouldn’t this mean that a movement can be moved without a conscious mover (God)?

A human being has a subconscious mind and conscious awareness. The subconscious is not a being.

 

[0Scarlett_nidiyilii]

No, because the subconscious still needs a brain and a mind to make it operate.

 

[Dan_Defender]

Our subconscious, which is a non-conscious being

No. Our subconscious is part of us, not a separate independent being.

 

[JerryZ]

Your subconscious is a part of you that is active when we are asleep. It cannot create anything. We do know that we can interact with it when we have dreams and in the Scriptures it is recorded that sometimes GOD speaks to us through them.
The 1st Mover on the other hand did actually create that which did not exist before.
GOD puts in motion the Universe by HIS sheer will.
When the Philosophers speaks of “movement” he is referring to change in the material world, not in the abstract mind.

Peace!

 

[FiveLinden]

The First Mover Argument shows that the world couldn’t just pop into existence.

No, the first mover argument asserts that the world could not just pop into existence. It ‘shows’ no such thing.

 

[Wesrock]

WannabeSaint:

The First Mover Argument shows that the world couldn’t just pop into existence.

No, the first mover argument asserts that the world could not just pop into existence. It ‘shows’ no such thing.

Well, it’s true that if you deny causality it would be impossible to show anything at all.

 

[FiveLinden]

Well, it’s true that if you deny causality it would be impossible to show anything at all

Really? My observation is that everything is in constant movement and change. It’s what things do. Things moving and changing can still be shown. The argument that ‘something must have started them moving and changing’ is not demonstrated by anything.

 

[WannabeSaint]

I still am kind of perplexed.

A heart is a non-sentient object, yet it beats on its own. We don’t command it to beat. It just beats.

If a heart can beat (move) on its own, couldn’t the universe “move” on its own?

 

[JerryZ]

The heart beats of it own accord because it was designed to do so.
It does not exist in a vacuum, it is a part of a living being.
The Universe cannot create itself, as before the time it was created NOTHING was there. Sometimes we have a hard time understanding the concept of nothing. Nothing cannot create something. It is factually illogical.

Peace!

 

[Dan_Defender]

A heart is a non-sentient object, yet it beats on its own. We don’t command it to beat. It just beats.

A heart is not an independent being. It is part of the circulatory system. Without oxygen, a heart stops.

 

[ThomasMT]

Our subconscious, which is a non-conscious being, acts and moves without any control from us.

Wouldn’t this mean that a movement can be moved without a conscious mover (God)?

I find the premise flawed. The subconscious is still moved by various stimuli, even if not by us per se.

 

[Usagi]

The heart acts in response to stimuli. There are things outside the heart that can affect its movement.

The issue is whether everything that is (the universe) can just be existing and acting without some original, external-to-the-universe stimulus.

 

[FiveLinden]

The issue is whether everything that is (the universe) can just be existing and acting without some original, external-to-the-universe stimulus.

Indeed. And why could it not?