Multiple prime movers?

[flyingfish]

If you accept the prime mover argument for the existence of God, why do you think this argument requires for there to be a single prime mover rather than many? (When Aristotle formulated the argument, he wondered about the number of prime movers:

The number of movers

Near the end of Metaphysics, Book Λ, Aristotle introduces a surprising question, asking “whether we have to suppose one such [mover] or more than one, and if the latter, how many.”[2] Aristotle concludes that the number of all the movers equals the number of separate movements, and we can determine these by considering the mathematical science most akin to philosophy, i.e., astronomy. Although the mathematicians differ on the number of movements, Aristotle considers that the number of spheres would be 49 or 55. Nonetheless, he concludes his Metaphysics, Book Λ, with a quotation from the Iliad: “The rule of many is not good; one ruler let there be.”[3][4]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmoved_mover)

 

[frindro]

It might be useful to apply Occam’s Razor here and say one is adding onto the necessary amount of unmoved movers. The argument is meant to show that an Unmoved Mover’s existence is necessary, so, since the existence of other movers is not necessary, and there is little reason to suppose that they exist.

 

[prodigalson12]

You are moving a heavy object across a field, you as one can only move it a tiny fraction at a time, yet your time frame is unlimited to move it. Do you employ help for it, or not? And why would you if you do so? Does it matter if things happen in our time frame, or if things happen for their own sake in being without holding up to personal scrutiny as to being expediting? Who are we to dictate the order of things, it’s enough that they are, we do not know the ultimate plan in being, yet merely can only accept them as having a purpose.