First Mover Argument: How to Prove It?

[IWantGod]

But the point I’m making is that there is no necessity to explain an infinite past of contingent events. That is an available response to these arguments.

And what I’m saying is that there is no need to refute an infinite past because an infinite series of contingent beings is comprised of things that do not exist because of their own nature, none of them do, and therefore the series should not exist at all. An infinite past cannot be the reason why there is something rather than absolutely nothing at all. In other-words a being is required in order to make them exist. Obviously it cannot be a being that is contingent because you will end up with the same problem you had before. It’s existence has to be necessary, it has to be a nature that cannot fail to exist. It has to be a nature that does not move from potential to actuality.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

You are making claims that you take to be self-evident, but people are capable of doubting them without falling into contradiction or nonsense. So I don’t take them to be self-evident, even though I mostly agree with what you’ve said.

 

[IWantGod]

You are making claims that you take to be self-evident, but people are capable of doubting them without falling into contradiction or nonsense.

I am just using reason, it has nothing to do with something being self-evident as you claim. And i guess according to you a contingent being existing for absolutely no reason and a thing popping out of absolutely nothing for no reason are rational alternatives, not nonsense?

If that’s the case we are going to have to agree to disagree.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I am just using reason, it has nothing to do with something being self-evident as you claim. And i guess according to you a contingent being existing for absolutely no reason and a thing popping out of absolutely nothing for no reason are rational alternatives, not nonsense?

No, actually, I think that ex nihilo nihil fit may be one of the only self-evident claims that really stands up to scrutiny. But the claim that there cannot be an infinite backlog of contingent beings is one that doesn’t reach the standards of self-evidence, because it presumes not only that each event has a cause, but that the collection of all events has a cause as well. That is a claim we have no a priori or a posteriori certainty about.

 

[IWantGod]

a posteriori certainty about.

Wrong. None of those beings exist because of their nature, therefore none of them are actually giving existence from the power of their own intrinsic nature because all of them are receiving existence and therefore their power by definition of being contingent. They are receiving their existence, it is not intrinsic to the series. Therefore an infinite series is not existentially self-sustaining. Something outside of the series has to be posited in order to explain the existence of an infinite series.

There is no way out of the argument.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Something outside of the series has to be posited in order to explain the existence of an infinite series.

I have agreed with this. We’re going in circles now.

 

[rossum]

I am claiming that a cause can originate outside time, and the sentence above denies that without giving a reason.

OK, I’ll grant you that. However, now we have a change from “outside time” to “inside time”, since the parting of the sea for Moses happened inside time. What caused that change from outside to inside? It can’t have been God, because God is unchanging. Hence there must have been some changing ancillary cause triggering the change from outside time to inside time.

In general there are huge logical problems with an unchanging cause acting inside time:

MOSES: “Lord, please part the sea so that your people may escape the Egyptians.”

GOD: “I am sorry, Moses, I cannot do that. I did not part the sea yesterday, and because I am unchanging I cannot do anything different today.”

rossum