On refutation of the Unmoved Mover

[polytropos]

Merely listing a few attributes and saying they are somewhat similar to how Christians think of God is far from proof. There’s not even any attempt to work out how many other conceptions could have the same few attributes, there might be thousands.

I’m a bit confused. Did you read the paragraph I quoted? It seems not, so let’s reproduce it:

Many people would be tempted to suggest that even if it were true that there was such a force, going ahead and calling it “God” would quickly strain credulity. Nonetheless, as Professor Feser beautifully explains, logic alone would demonstrate that the force in question would have all of the characteristics of the classical Western notion of the Creator. For instance, inasmuch as there must be an ultimate non-contingent force, its non-contingency indicates that (as held in monotheism) it must be singular, for if there were more than one mover each would be limited – and hence contingent – deriving their power from some earlier force. Such a force would also need to be immaterial as material things are changeable and therefore contingent. This being would not come into or go out of existence but simply always exist. Finally, as the source of all change, this prime mover would be the ultimate cause of things coming to have the qualities and attributes that they do – eminently, if not formally. Inasmuch as that would include all powers, we would conclude that this being is all powerful and all knowledgeable.

It is not just a list of attributes. The first hint is that a list of attributes would not have taken up that much space. The next hint is that he is giving reasons for the derivations of God’s attributes:

• “inasmuch as there must be an ultimate non-contingent force, its non-contingency indicates that (as held in monotheism) it must be singular, for if there were more than one mover each would be limited – and hence contingent – deriving their power from some earlier force,”
• “Such a force would also need to be immaterial as material things are changeable and therefore contingent,”
  -“as the source of all change, this prime mover would be the ultimate cause of things coming to have the qualities and attributes that they do – eminently, if not formally. Inasmuch as that would include all powers, we would conclude that this being is all powerful and all knowledgeable”
  Look at that, I’ve requoted most of the paragraph.

These are not full “proofs,” because those take up several pages the relevant works and the article is meant to be short, but you cannot read that paragraph I’ve quoted and rationally say that the author is making assumptions. Perhaps you may be skeptical or even disagree with it, but the claim that it assumes the Christian God is simply false. Perhaps you don’t know what a phrase like “eminently, if not formally” means, and like a good skeptic, you decide to go read up on the topic so that you don’t brush off something you don’t understand.

Not to mention, neither I nor the author has claimed that the argument for the Unmoved Mover exclusively proves the existence of the Christian God (the author is Jewish so that would be a slightly flawed inference). So neither I nor he has denied that the argument might be employed by a Christian, a Jew, or a Muslim - or simply a philosophical theist like Aristotle.

The FSM is not intended to be taken seriously, but if its Noodly Appendage is disallowed then the god of intelligent design must also be disallowed, since one is a satire on the other, although currently I can’t remember which.

Though you could say why you think it isn’t a candidate, since the website confirms that “By design, the only dogma allowed …] is the rejection of dogma”, and Pastafarians don’t appear to agree on much other than light-hearted fun.

I realize the FSM is not intended to be taken seriously, although sometimes people employ it as a sort of 21st century Russel’s teapot, which (at least in the case of the classical theistic cosmological argument we’re discussing here) is a failure. I’ve explained twice why the Unmoved Mover, as Pure Act, could not be the the FSM.

As far as “the god of intelligent design” goes, I’m not sure what you mean. First, Catholics don’t disbelieve evolution, so I have no stake really in defending the application of the argument to “the god of intelligent design.” Second, you would have to provide some justification for that assertion. As I’ve said three times now, the FSM could not be the Unmoved Mover because it, being material, could not be Pure Act. (The same reason would be applied to any other “lesser deity.” Greek gods like Zeus and Hera came into being, which means they had potential not to be and are contingent, so they could not be Pure Act either.)

There’s also no reliance on dogma involved in the argument for the Unmoved Mover (obviated by the fact that the argument originated with Aristotle).

 

[polytropos]

Your capitalizing still leaves me wondering whether you are discussing the argument or the assumptions of deity surrounding the argument. I’m happy to discuss the former, but past experience is that where they are not clearly separated, any criticism of the argument tends to be seen as a direct attack on personal beliefs and things quickly go belly up. In this type of discussion it’s important to agree to talk about the merits of the argument as is, devoid of any religious connotations, to avoid frightening the horses.

I really don’t understand how you could so blatantly avoid engaging the argument at all, and then accuse me of “discussing…the assumptions of deity surrounding the argument” because I’m capitalizing Unmoved Mover. Imagine that I’m typing everything in lowercase if it helps; if you think my capitalization is leading me to illogically read theistic assumptions into the argument, then show where I do so. Don’t just assert that you’re left “wondering” which I’m doing. I highly doubt it’s obfuscating the matter too much.

The fact that I’m carefully using the terms Unmoved Mover and Pure Act should indicate to you that I am not prematurely reading in any theistic assumptions. Also, you might note the fact that I have pretty clearly stated a few times now what the implications of the argument are (that from Pure Act we draw other conclusions, that Christianity specifically is reached through faith in the resurrection, etc.).

I’ve mostly only seen versions of the argument in tracts, where it is made to sound as though it proves the existence of the Christian God. To me those tracts are trying to pull the wool over peoples’ eyes, it’s more about backsides on pews and running a business than salvation.

I wasn’t making personal comments, it never occurred to me, I was commenting on those tracts which I’ve seen across many denominations.

Perhaps you’ve had a poor introduction to the arguments (like many others, including myself). If you are genuinely interested in familiarizing yourself with cosmological arguments, I would suggest reading Aquinas by Edward Feser (or The Last Superstition if you can stomach the polemics of someone with a different viewpoint). I don’t mean this as a “read this book and you’ll see why you’re wrong!” comment. I am only suggesting materials that would increase your understanding of the argument.

 

[inocente]

True to form, you seem to be redirecting the conversation away from any particular philosophical argument and toward a prima facie rejection of philosophical enterprise in general.

I am aware that educated people, particularly those skilled in rhetoric, could probably pretend to find more flaws in an argument, but that doesn’t matter. If one wants to disprove it, then one need only articulate which premise or logical step is false. No need for diversion.

True to form, you seem to be redirecting the conversation away from what I said and toward a prima facie rejection of whatever I say.

This is unfair. Neither I nor anyone else is intentionally leaving “unwarranted assumptions uncorrected” (there is evidence in this topic to the contrary). Furthermore, if the critiques are misconceptions, then I’m going to call it as it is; do you expect me to yield to straw men and caricatures when the argument is sound, or what? If you don’t think your critiques are based on misconceptions, then please defend them adequately. It is not my fault that most critiques of the cosmological argument fail, and I’m not going to stop defending the argument simply because poor objections have been raised.

Again you took my comments as directed against you personally when they weren’t.

While one could employ the Unmoved Mover argument for any of the major monotheistic religions, it is flatly false that it can be used to prove any particular deity.

Good, we’re agreed.

Yeah, unfortunately in a topic about whether or not the proof for the Unmoved Mover can be refuted, you can’t just gesture toward things like “whether an infinite regression is more or less paradoxical than a first cause.” You’d need to spell out these purported objections in detail. (And what are “the argument’s woes” anyway? You have basically given us one - that the argument could be used to prove the existence of the FSM, the Force, or the conservation of energy - which demonstrably fails, so I’m not sure the term “woes” is justified.)

I never said the argument proves conservation of energy, clearly it does no such thing.

I have spelled out my main objection and we have discussed it. Assume for a moment that the argument is true, that it proves the unmoved mover. This first cause could be a number of things, one of which is what some ordinarily call God. But is there any attempt to work out what the alternatives might be? No, because supporters of the argument don’t appear interested in trying to find out, but instead just support their presupposition.

My second objection is that the very idea that the argument might not be perfect and might have flaws sends its supporters into a spin. If they were really interested in trying to understand the origin of life the universe and everything they would themselves be trying to find the flaws and explore alternatives. But as they have convinced themselves that the argument is perfect, the only philosophical argument ever to be perfect, all inquiry is brought to an end.

Unfortunately that’s often what passes for philosophy on the internet.

By describing the “convoluted concepts” and why they are wrong, I mean actually describing what they are and how they are wrong. Whether modern physics uses them consciously doesn’t matter. Can you dispute that “Potency and Act divide being in such a way that whatever is, is either pure act or of necessity is composed of potency and act as primary and intrinsic principles”? Or, to put it more colloquially, can you provide a counterexample to the truth that all things are one thing and have the potential to be other things?

Yes. The number 1 is an abstract thing. It doesn’t have the potential to be anything else.

On the other hand perhaps a physical thing does have that potential. What do we mean by a physical thing? It’s an arrangement of particles to which we give a name, such as apple. But ever since that apple started growing, the arrangement of particles that make it an apple has changed constantly, yet we choose to blithely ignore all of those changes and call them all apple. So apple is just our classification, when all that really exists objectively are arrangements of particles. And even those particles are in motion, they cannot do otherwise, they are constantly changing as change they must.

So to talk of things having the potential to be other things is to talk only of our cognition, only of how we might see the world. The concepts are convoluted because they only appear to exist as machinery to support the argument, and they speak only of how some philosophers chose to see the world, not of how the world is.

 

[inocente]

No ad hominem. .

I don’t think you have room to argue against ad hominems since that is you favorite sport, as your post # 92 typifies:

" Careful now, that’s unnervingly close to the dilettante’s cry that disbelievers are too ignorant and unsophisticated to understand their whacky theories.

I see. So you think my caution was a personal attack, an argument against you rather than your argument. Yet you think your “You have been told that the purpose of philosophy is to serve as a tool to philosophy. It was never intended for average students. [etc.]” wasn’t an an argument against people rather than their argument?

Your other example wasn’t ad hominem either. I said "Although come to mention it the unmoved mover argument does have attributes of a whacky theory: it’s based on arcane and somewhat convoluted concepts, makes no testable predictions, and as regards the notion that it proves a personal deity :-

".

That is quite obviously aimed squarely at the argument, not at the person.

Perhaps you could reconsider the evidence here.

No attempt was made of " dismissing all challenges out of hand, " that is the device you have been using. All I pointed out is that scientism is an " unfalsefiable " position itself. Science directs the intellect toward one sort of truth, philosophy another, Theology another, Divine Revelation another, common sense another. Each is valid in its own sphere. Scientism is false in that it claims for itself the authority to judge the validity of all others.

I was responding to your ad hominem, which lectured me that I was uneducated and incompetent to challenge the might of your intellectual prowess. Here’s what you said: “You have been told that the purpose of philosophy is to serve as a tool to philosophy. It was never intended for average students. Unfortunately, today many average students jump in and after barely surviving 18 hours or so of philosophy feel qualified to trumpet loud and wide about all they " know. " And of course the problem is even worse for the casual " apologist " or antagonist who, after reading a paper back or two, open up on Face Book and broadcast their ignorance to the wide world. And there are many on each side displaying their ignorance daily on these forums. Today, everyone is an expert. Ignorance does not faze them in the least.”

* Doesn’t seem like proof of any thing to me.

How about this: " For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. ever since the cretion of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal powerer and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things than have been made. ( Rom. 1: 19-20 and similarly: Acts 14: 15, 17: 27-28; Wis 13: 1-9 )

Is this not philosophy at the common sense level? So why your continuous rant against Philosophy? You may not understand it, that does not mean it has no or little truth value. It simply means either that you cannot understand it or you have not devoted enough diligence and time to understand it.*

You had asked me “What makes you think what you read in the Bible is true?” and I said “The Spirit” and gave 1 Cor 1:18-31 as evidence that “It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption. Therefore, as it is written: “Let the one who boasts boast in the Lord.””.

But yet again you descend immediately into naked ad hominem, again saying I’m beneath your contempt.

Please either respond to the arguments or do not respond at all, enough of this lily-livered testosterone-ladled faux-philosophy, let’s see if we can’t manage to rise to the real deal.

 

[inocente]

I didn’t imply anything. I said you didn’t understand philosophy because you either have not devoted enough time to the subject or you are incapable of understanding it. That is clear from your mode of argument. How is that ad hominem ? And as far as that goes, you have no room to hurle that pejorative. Your own house is faced in glass.

Well, it is pretty clear for all to see that you do no wish to seriously engage. You might just as well post a plackard saying, “…Science is the only means to know the truth about anything.” That is why I asked you about the Bible. Clearly scientism rejects anything about the truth of the Bible. That you seem to accept it indicates your prejudice in rejecting Philosophical truth. So how can you accept Biblical truth if you reject Philosophical truth? What about common sense truth? There is nothing so consistent about your position as its inconsistencey.

It is against forum rules to jump threads. If you had anything to say about the subject you wouldn’t need to keep making all these personal attacks.

Please either post on-topic or stop posting to me,

 

[inocente]

These are not full “proofs,” because those take up several pages the relevant works and the article is meant to be short, but you cannot read that paragraph I’ve quoted and rationally say that the author is making assumptions. Perhaps you may be skeptical or even disagree with it, but the claim that it assumes the Christian God is simply false. Perhaps you don’t know what a phrase like “eminently, if not formally” means, and like a good skeptic, you decide to go read up on the topic so that you don’t brush off something you don’t understand.

Not to mention, neither I nor the author has claimed that the argument for the Unmoved Mover exclusively proves the existence of the Christian God (the author is Jewish so that would be a slightly flawed inference). So neither I nor he has denied that the argument might be employed by a Christian, a Jew, or a Muslim - or simply a philosophical theist like Aristotle.

This is all well and good but didn’t tackle my objection that for all we know there are many agencies other than what many think of as God which could have the same attributes, characteristics, traits, properties or whatever we want to call them.

An assumption is something accepted as true without question or proof, so when alternative explanations are not explored or mentioned, that means inquiry has been cut short = assumption.

I realize the FSM is not intended to be taken seriously, although sometimes people employ it as a sort of 21st century Russel’s teapot, which (at least in the case of the classical theistic cosmological argument we’re discussing here) is a failure. I’ve explained twice why the Unmoved Mover, as Pure Act, could not be the the FSM.

It’s only of passing interest, no biggy, but I don’t see how it is ruled out when there is no developed doctrine about what the FSM might be. It could be pure essence, the allusion to spaghetti merely an attempt to fathom the unfathomable.

As far as “the god of intelligent design” goes, I’m not sure what you mean. First, Catholics don’t disbelieve evolution, so I have no stake really in defending the application of the argument to “the god of intelligent design.” Second, you would have to provide some justification for that assertion. As I’ve said three times now, the FSM could not be the Unmoved Mover because it, being material, could not be Pure Act. (The same reason would be applied to any other “lesser deity.” Greek gods like Zeus and Hera came into being, which means they had potential not to be and are contingent, so they could not be Pure Act either.)

The FSM was invented as a satire on intelligent design, the idea being that if school boards gave time to teaching ID in science, they must give equal time to FSM as it is no less scientific.

The Noodly Appendage was invented to change carbon dating results, as a satire on the ID claim that it’s -]deity/-] agent intervenes. There’s no reason why it cannot be pure act (again refusing the capitalization). In philosophical terms ID and FSM are fairly similar, by design as it were, hence the joke.

There’s also no reliance on dogma involved in the argument for the Unmoved Mover (obviated by the fact that the argument originated with Aristotle).

Agreed, it is rather the way that it is often used.

 

[inocente]

I really don’t understand how you could so blatantly avoid engaging the argument at all, and then accuse me of “discussing…the assumptions of deity surrounding the argument” because I’m capitalizing Unmoved Mover. Imagine that I’m typing everything in lowercase if it helps; if you think my capitalization is leading me to illogically read theistic assumptions into the argument, then show where I do so. Don’t just assert that you’re left “wondering” which I’m doing. I highly doubt it’s obfuscating the matter too much.

The fact that I’m carefully using the terms Unmoved Mover and Pure Act should indicate to you that I am not prematurely reading in any theistic assumptions. Also, you might note the fact that I have pretty clearly stated a few times now what the implications of the argument are (that from Pure Act we draw other conclusions, that Christianity specifically is reached through faith in the resurrection, etc.).

OK, but look at it from my point of view. When people start “Unprovoked Capitalization” it is usually a warning not to challenge a concept which is being reified, deified, or both.

My experience before has been that challenging concepts which have been given Unprovoked Capitalization frightens the horses. And if you didn’t notice, that’s exactly what’s happened on this thread too.

Perhaps you’ve had a poor introduction to the arguments (like many others, including myself). If you are genuinely interested in familiarizing yourself with cosmological arguments, I would suggest reading Aquinas by Edward Feser (or The Last Superstition if you can stomach the polemics of someone with a different viewpoint). I don’t mean this as a “read this book and you’ll see why you’re wrong!” comment. I am only suggesting materials that would increase your understanding of the argument.

Sorry but after other posts I wonder if this as just another example on this thread of breaking forum rules by insinuating that anyone who dares challenge the argument is an uneducated slob. The stickies say treat others as equals “with equal expectations of each other in terms of research, logic, challenges, and portrayal of Catholic teaching”.

Whatever, philosophy is dead, killed softly by its own advocates.

 

[Peter_Plato]

OK, but look at it from my point of view. When people start “Unprovoked Capitalization” it is usually a warning not to challenge a concept which is being reified, deified, or both.

My experience before has been that challenging concepts which have been given Unprovoked Capitalization frightens the horses. And if you didn’t notice, that’s exactly what’s happened on this thread too.

Sorry but after other posts I wonder if this as just another example on this thread of breaking forum rules by insinuating that anyone who dares challenge the argument is an uneducated slob. The stickies say treat others as equals “with equal expectations of each other in terms of research, logic, challenges, and portrayal of Catholic teaching”.

Whatever, philosophy is dead, killed softly by its own advocates.

I have come to the conclusion that while you claim adherence to a Christian denomination (Baptist), you prattle on about the absolute authority of evidence whle speaking obscurely of being moved by the Holy Spirit, what is most likely the case is that you have been pulling our collective legs the whole while and simply mean the phrase “Holy Spirit” to denote “evidence” while not, for whatever reason - I am thinking having a little fun at our expense - letting on that that is what you are doing.

In this way, you claim complete immunity from any philosophical critique because you believe yourself to have the infallibility of evidence (crypticly referred to as “Holy Spirit”) on your side. It is interesting how you blithely dismiss all references to God as if any conception or notion of God, except yours, must be, like the FSM, pure fiction because all these errant notions derive from philosophy, which is, according to you, the mother of all fiction.

When asked to demonstrate how you know God (as in belief in the Holy Spirit you subscribe to) exists, you utter a long series of meaningless and irrelevant incantations which typically end in a reproach or rebuke of the spirit of philosophy as if your mere denunciation will exorcise the universe of it.

In the end, your diatribe makes no ascertainable demonstration as to how you can reconcile absolute trust in what you call the “Holy Spirit” (an immaterial entity which you admit is not subject to evidential methods - and Evidence, properly deified, is not) while claiming indefatigable allegiance to evidence as the only source of knowledge. Since you adamantly claim that God (and therefore the Holy Spirit), as an immaterial being cannot be the subject of knowledge - the only possible origin of knowledge is experience - it would seem that nothing meaningful can be concluded about your God (the Holy Spirit,) except under one condition, the following:

The only way to reconcile your certainty of guidance by the Holy Spirit with evidence being the only source of certainty is by an inevitable conclusion that by “Holy Spirit” you surreptitiously intend to mean simply “evidence.” The cat is now out of the bag.

Let’s not be sidetracked by your ploy regarding Unprovoked Capitalization, you are coyly taking scientism to its logical conclusion and have deified Evidence. Correct?

Your silence will be taken as evidence that this is true.

 

[inocente]

I have come to the conclusion that while you claim adherence to a Christian denomination (Baptist), you prattle on about the absolute authority of evidence whle speaking obscurely of being moved by the Holy Spirit, what is most likely the case is that you have been pulling our collective legs the whole while and simply mean the phrase “Holy Spirit” to denote “evidence” while not, for whatever reason - I am thinking having a little fun at our expense - letting on that that is what you are doing.

In this way, you claim complete immunity from any philosophical critique because you believe yourself to have the infallibility of evidence (crypticly referred to as “Holy Spirit”) on your side. It is interesting how you blithely dismiss all references to God as if any conception or notion of God, except yours, must be, like the FSM, pure fiction because all these errant notions derive from philosophy, which is, according to you, the mother of all fiction.

When asked to demonstrate how you know God (as in belief in the Holy Spirit you subscribe to) exists, you utter a long series of meaningless and irrelevant incantations which typically end in a reproach or rebuke of the spirit of philosophy as if your mere denunciation will exorcise the universe of it.

In the end, your diatribe makes no ascertainable demonstration as to how you can reconcile absolute trust in what you call the “Holy Spirit” (an immaterial entity which you admit is not subject to evidential methods - and Evidence, properly deified, is not) while claiming indefatigable allegiance to evidence as the only source of knowledge. Since you adamantly claim that God (and therefore the Holy Spirit), as an immaterial being cannot be the subject of knowledge - the only possible origin of knowledge is experience - it would seem that nothing meaningful can be concluded about your God (the Holy Spirit,) except under one condition, the following:

The only way to reconcile your certainty of guidance by the Holy Spirit with evidence being the only source of certainty is by an inevitable conclusion that by “Holy Spirit” you surreptitiously intend to mean simply “evidence.” The cat is now out of the bag.

You are simply taking scientism to its logical conclusion and have deified evidence. Correct?

Your silence will be taken as evidence that this is true.

I’ve not read this post.

I told you some weeks ago that I would ignore all your posts in future due to the amount of time you wasted with your bad behavior, attempts at bullying, and constant personal attacks.

You know this yet you have continued to stalk me.

There have been instances in Europe recently of teenagers committing suicide after being bullied on social network sites.

The forum rules are not there simply as etiquette, bad behavior on the internet has consequences.

Go away, stop stalking me.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I’ve not read this post.

I told you some weeks ago that I would ignore all your posts in future due to the amount of time you wasted with your bad behavior, attempts at bullying, and constant personal attacks.

You know this yet you have continued to stalk me.

There have been instances in Europe recently of teenagers committing suicide after being bullied on social network sites.

The forum rules are not there simply as etiquette, bad behavior on the internet has consequences.

Go away, stop stalking me.

I have made my final point.

Rest assured I will not respond to another post of yours again.

 

[Linux]

Whatever, philosophy is dead, killed softly by its own advocates.

So i guess you cannot be metaphysically certain of your own existence either since you say that philosophy dead.

 

[polytropos]

True to form, you seem to be redirecting the conversation away from what I said and toward a prima facie rejection of whatever I say.

You modified your statement from saying that more educated people find more flaws in the Unmoved Mover argument to saying that more educated people find more flaws in philosophical arguments in general. I assumed (I apologize if I was wrong) that you were going to start questioning whether any knowledge could be gained from philosophy. In any case, this is irrelevant.

I never said the argument proves conservation of energy, clearly it does no such thing.

I think if we throw away all the religious baggage acquired by the argument, the unmoved mover is really a principle somewhat akin to the principle of conservation of energy (but without evidence), and the Star Wars Force then fits reasonably well as a possible hypothesis.

The argument really isn’t related to the principle of conservation of energy. I’m not really sure why you brought it up, because apparently I characterized what you said incorrectly and cannot really tell what your point was. Please restate it if it was important.

I have spelled out my main objection and we have discussed it. Assume for a moment that the argument is true, that it proves the unmoved mover. This first cause could be a number of things, one of which is what some ordinarily call God. But is there any attempt to work out what the alternatives might be? No, because supporters of the argument don’t appear interested in trying to find out, but instead just support their presupposition.

Why do you keep saying this? The conclusion that the Unmoved Mover is Pure Act allows us to demonstrate a lot of things about it (it is immaterial, omnipotent, omniscient, simple, etc. - those things spelled out in the paragraph I’ve referred to). To be more specific, it rules out a good many things and squares specifically with the classically conceived notion of God.

The other “number of things” it could be, you’d have to specify. The Force, the FSM, the conservation of energy all fail. I don’t know which of those you are seriously suggesting, since you seem to have mentioned them in an offhand manner, but since none of them work and you’ve mentioned nothing else, this claim that “[t]his first cause could be a number of things” has gone completely unsubstantiated.

I am also not really sure what you mean when you say that there is no attempt to work out alternatives. The paragraph I’ve quoted for you specifies a number of qualities which necessarily follow from Pure Act, so logically those things which do not have those qualities would be ruled out… so I don’t know what you mean by “alternatives” to an omniscient, omnipotent, simple, immaterial Being. But if you’d like to propose any, that would be great. We can think it over together.

My second objection is that the very idea that the argument might not be perfect and might have flaws sends its supporters into a spin. If they were really interested in trying to understand the origin of life the universe and everything they would themselves be trying to find the flaws and explore alternatives. But as they have convinced themselves that the argument is perfect, the only philosophical argument ever to be perfect, all inquiry is brought to an end.

I do believe the argument is sound (although I don’t recall saying that it was “the only philosophical argument ever to be perfect” or that “all inquiry is brought to an end”). But then you might equivocate and say that you weren’t referring to me, just the argument’s “supporters.”

But honestly, you are taking the same attitude about your own critiques. You seemed bothered earlier that I’ve dismissed some of your critiques as “misconceptions.” The argument’s supporters are so caught up in trying to prove the existence of God that they are unfair to those who criticize them. They are not genuinely interested in “understand[ing] the origin of life the universe and everything.”

I would appreciate if you did not try to analyze my motives for being a supporter of the argument for the Unmoved Mover, because I hope you’ll agree that they are decidedly irrelevant. If you are just considering the motives of “its supporters,” a group which happens not to include me (for some reason), then I hope you’ll agree that that is even less relevant to the topic at hand. I don’t know why you call this an “objection” - as though the motives or confidence of the supporters of an argument has any bearing whatsoever on the truth or falsity of a claim.

 

[polytropos]

Yes. The number 1 is an abstract thing. It doesn’t have the potential to be anything else.

This isn’t a counterexample, though. The principle in the quote was that potency and act divide a thing such that it is either pure act or some combination of potency and act. An abstract object, though it cannot change, can still be purely actual with no potentials. That is not ruled out by the principle (my paraphrasing, admittedly, was not clear about that, but the quoted statement should have made it clear).

In any case, such an objection about an abstract object would not forestall the First Way, since an abstract object like the number 1 has no causal efficacy, ie. to put it in terms of Aristotelian causality, it has no material cause but it does have a formal cause, unlike Pure Act which has no form/essence/genus. This would not have any force against the fact that any change you observe must be part of a per se causal series moved by a first, Unmoved Mover. The Unmoved Mover, by necessity, must be Pure Act and have causal efficacy.

On the other hand perhaps a physical thing does have that potential. What do we mean by a physical thing? It’s an arrangement of particles to which we give a name, such as apple. But ever since that apple started growing, the arrangement of particles that make it an apple has changed constantly, yet we choose to blithely ignore all of those changes and call them all apple. So apple is just our classification, when all that really exists objectively are arrangements of particles. And even those particles are in motion, they cannot do otherwise, they are constantly changing as change they must.

Yes, the arrangement of particles that make it an apple has changed constantly, and that only illustrates the point that I am making. The seed only grows into an apple when its potentialities are actualized by something else in act. Its potentialities are certainly not actualized by nothing.

It is true that “apple” and “seed” are words that we use for the first and last stage, but that is pretty unrelated. (In Aristotelian metaphysics, the forms of “seed” and “apple” are abstracted, so the intermediary stages are not perfect instantiations of “seed” or “apple,” but that is an intellectual process and the principle of causality is unaffected.)

This is all well and good but didn’t tackle my objection that for all we know there are many agencies other than what many think of as God which could have the same attributes, characteristics, traits, properties or whatever we want to call them.

Can you name a few of these “many agencies other than what many think of as God which could have the same attributes, characteristics, traits, properties or whatever we want to call them”? If there are so many, I imagine you could list at least a few.

I am, however, a bit surprised, since this objection is covered in the paragraph I quoted: " its non-contingency indicates that (as held in monotheism) it must be singular, for if there were more than one mover each would be limited – and hence contingent – deriving their power from some earlier force." You might disagree with it, but surely it would be false to say that the proponents of the argument for the Unmoved Mover have not “tackled” such an objection. To clarify, the argument for the Unmoved Mover concludes that there is a Being which is Pure Act. So obviously, these “many agencies other than what many think of as God” would need to also be Pure Act, and since they are other agencies, they would need to be distinct from God in some way (they would have to lack something He has, or have something He lacks). But Pure Act could not have any lack, so that would not make sense, so Pure Act would have to be one.

An assumption is something accepted as true without question or proof, so when alternative explanations are not explored or mentioned, that means inquiry has been cut short = assumption.

Well, we have a proof. And you have not offered a substantive “alternative explanation” (although you do keep claiming that “there are many agencies other than what many think of as God”). So I don’t really seem to be the one making an assumption here.

I don’t think I’ve showed any unwillingness to consider your propositions, and I seem to still be in the process of inquiry. So no assumptions to see here - at least not on my end.

It’s only of passing interest, no biggy, but I don’t see how it is ruled out when there is no developed doctrine about what the FSM might be. It could be pure essence, the allusion to spaghetti merely an attempt to fathom the unfathomable.

Well, if it’s undefined, then we trivially can’t see if Pure Act ends up being what it is.

One could say that the Flying Spaghetti Monster has all of the same qualities as God (classically conceived), so then the argument does prove the existence of “the Flying Spaghetti Monster,” but in doing so you’re just renaming God.

 

[polytropos]

OK, but look at it from my point of view. When people start “Unprovoked Capitalization” it is usually a warning not to challenge a concept which is being reified, deified, or both.

I capitalize Unmoved Mover because I believe that the Unmoved Mover is the Christian God (having gone through and accepted the posterior reasoning and study). But my doing so is really quite irrelevant to the argument for the Unmoved Mover, so hopefully it doesn’t confuse you or cause you to read any assumptions about the argument. That would be unfortunate.

My experience before has been that challenging concepts which have been given Unprovoked Capitalization frightens the horses. And if you didn’t notice, that’s exactly what’s happened on this thread too.

I can never tell if you are referring to me. But again, I take the argument to establish the existence of an Unmoved Mover with the qualities of God. I am obviously going to defend the argument, especially when I think insubstantial criticisms have been raised against it.

The opposite would be… what? To concede that the argument has been defeated even though the criticisms in question are demonstrably inadequate? I don’t understand the double standard: I certainly don’t expect you to fold your hands and accept the argument just because I’ve stated it, but you seem to think that your critiques of it are inviolable, and “the very idea that the argument might not be perfect and might have flaws sends its supporters into a spin.”

Sorry but after other posts I wonder if this as just another example on this thread of breaking forum rules by insinuating that anyone who dares challenge the argument is an uneducated slob. The stickies say treat others as equals “with equal expectations of each other in terms of research, logic, challenges, and portrayal of Catholic teaching”.

Whatever, philosophy is dead, killed softly by its own advocates.

I mentioned the books only because you stated, “I’ve mostly only seen versions of the argument in tracts, where it is made to sound as though it proves the existence of the Christian God. To me those tracts are trying to pull the wool over peoples’ eyes, it’s more about backsides on pews and running a business than salvation.” I read this as a profession of ignorance and an admittance that you may have not been introduced to the most cogent formulations of the argument.

Perhaps I supposed, too hastily, that you might have been interested in learning more.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

It is against forum rules to jump threads. If you had anything to say about the subject you wouldn’t need to keep making all these personal attacks.

Please either post on-topic or stop posting to me,

You may not appreciate it but in these forums anyone can post to anyone. Don’t respond if you don’t want to. I have noticed you don’t like to answer the hard questions.

It seems you do not want to talk to anyone who challenges you. So why stay around?

All I have done is point out the inconsistancy of your positiion. You cannot be a proponent of scientism and be a Christian of any sort. I understand why one who holds such a position would attack Thomistic Philoslophy. But I don’t understand how they could be a Christian, a Muslim, or a Jew.

Linus2nd

 

[inocente]

You modified your statement from saying that more educated people find more flaws in the Unmoved Mover argument to saying that more educated people find more flaws in philosophical arguments in general. I assumed (I apologize if I was wrong) that you were going to start questioning whether any knowledge could be gained from philosophy. In any case, this is irrelevant.

I was open enough about it: “I said “the higher the level of education, the more flaws can be found in the unmoved mover argument”. My intent was “the higher the level of education, the more flaws can be found in any philosophical argument”, which still doesn’t seem controversial.”

Your assumption is wrong. To me (and I think you) real philosophy is about keeping an open mind and not settling for easy answers. But on the internet what many call philosophy is talking up their favorite boy bands and conforming to tribal stereotypes. Anyone with a different take has to put up with their constant lynching parties.

The argument really isn’t related to the principle of conservation of energy. I’m not really sure why you brought it up, because apparently I characterized what you said incorrectly and cannot really tell what your point was. Please restate it if it was important.

By the argument alone I think the unmoved mover is closer to a principle than a deity.

Why do you keep saying this? The conclusion that the Unmoved Mover is Pure Act allows us to demonstrate a lot of things about it (it is immaterial, omnipotent, omniscient, simple, etc. - those things spelled out in the paragraph I’ve referred to). To be more specific, it rules out a good many things and squares specifically with the classically conceived notion of God.

Even if we assume the argument is correct, it doesn’t follow that the unmoved mover didn’t put the universe in motion and then leave it on autopilot. Although admittedly that’s how some see God, constantly looking for signs.

I do believe the argument is sound (although I don’t recall saying that it was “the only philosophical argument ever to be perfect” or that “all inquiry is brought to an end”). But then you might equivocate and say that you weren’t referring to me, just the argument’s “supporters.”

I can only point to the level of emotion on this thread. This is only an internet forum, no one lives or dies according to what is posted, it’s only a discussion, an exchange of views. Yet look back at the outrage.

 

[inocente]

This isn’t a counterexample, though. The principle in the quote was that potency and act divide a thing such that it is either pure act or some combination of potency and act. An abstract object, though it cannot change, can still be purely actual with no potentials. That is not ruled out by the principle (my paraphrasing, admittedly, was not clear about that, but the quoted statement should have made it clear).

In any case, such an objection about an abstract object would not forestall the First Way, since an abstract object like the number 1 has no causal efficacy, ie. to put it in terms of Aristotelian causality, it has no material cause but it does have a formal cause, unlike Pure Act which has no form/essence/genus. This would not have any force against the fact that any change you observe must be part of a per se causal series moved by a first, Unmoved Mover. The Unmoved Mover, by necessity, must be Pure Act and have causal efficacy.

Though many would say the number 1 is real, and unlike physicalists, idealists would say fundamentally reality is ideas. Even some physicalists say that since math underlies all physical law, perhaps math is all there is. For example, string theory tries to explain everything in terms of different geometrical arrangements, where cause and effect and all else also comes down to geometry. Which may well be wrong but points to an underlying assumption in the argument that material bodies are more than just math. Our common sense can fool us.

Yes, the arrangement of particles that make it an apple has changed constantly, and that only illustrates the point that I am making. The seed only grows into an apple when its potentialities are actualized by something else in act. Its potentialities are certainly not actualized by nothing.

The issue though, is with statements in the argument such as “whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another”, since we now know that everything is made of particles and all particles must be in constant motion. Which raises questions such as whether a state of lack-of-motion is even possible, and from there, whether our common sense cause-and-effect view is naive.

Can you name a few of these “many agencies other than what many think of as God which could have the same attributes, characteristics, traits, properties or whatever we want to call them”? If there are so many, I imagine you could list at least a few.

Too many to mention. Take our relationship with God, take the problem of evil, take all the differing answers.

 

[inocente]

I capitalize Unmoved Mover because I believe that the Unmoved Mover is the Christian God (having gone through and accepted the posterior reasoning and study). But my doing so is really quite irrelevant to the argument for the Unmoved Mover, so hopefully it doesn’t confuse you or cause you to read any assumptions about the argument. That would be unfortunate.

OK.

The opposite would be… what? To concede that the argument has been defeated even though the criticisms in question are demonstrably inadequate? I don’t understand the double standard: I certainly don’t expect you to fold your hands and accept the argument just because I’ve stated it, but you seem to think that your critiques of it are inviolable, and “the very idea that the argument might not be perfect and might have flaws sends its supporters into a spin.”

Not you, supporters in general. A lot of unnecessary emotion.

Perhaps I supposed, too hastily, that you might have been interested in learning more.

I could take this as continuing the supporters’ agenda that anyone who disagrees with the argument must perforce be in urgent need of education. But if I did want to go beyond what I’ve read in the past, Feser would not be my choice as he has always seemed agenda driven.

 

[Linux]

By the argument alone I think the unmoved mover is closer to a principle than a deity.

Even if we assume the argument is correct, it doesn’t follow that the unmoved mover didn’t put the universe in motion and then leave it on autopilot. Although admittedly that’s how some see God, constantly looking for signs.

Well a full understanding of the argument reveals that God has to actualise all potency since more cannot come from less and change is the reduction of potency to actuality. That which is brought into actuality does not have intrinsic to its own nature the power of actuality which is intrinsic to the First Cause since it is receiving the power to act and is therefore merely a medium to the power it receives and is not the power itself.

Therefore God cannot be thought of as merely a deistic God who puts the universe in auto pilot. However God does let the universe evolve or move according to its inherent nature.

 

[inocente]

You may not appreciate it but in these forums anyone can post to anyone. Don’t respond if you don’t want to. I have noticed you don’t like to answer the hard questions.

It seems you do not want to talk to anyone who challenges you. So why stay around?

All I have done is point out the inconsistancy of your positiion. You cannot be a proponent of scientism and be a Christian of any sort. I understand why one who holds such a position would attack Thomistic Philoslophy. But I don’t understand how they could be a Christian, a Muslim, or a Jew.

I’m not sure whether to report you. I did take a position on one thread for science and against the neutered version of philosophy often seen on the internet, but you have no right to call me a proponent of scientism. Jumping threads and in particular questioning the sincerity of my beliefs are against forum rules.

So either report me or report yourself, but try not to use your inability to understand others as an excuse for personal attacks. Consider in particular that on the internet there is no defense against someone who questions your identity and your values, which makes it the most despicable possible form of bullying.