The Existence of God: The Argument From Motion

[Wesrock]

Post 2 of 2

• If the unmoved mover is pure act, it must necessarily be limited to those actions which are non-contradictory (logically speaking). That is, the unmoved mover cannot end existence (remove the ceiling) because it is existence, right? Does this not refute omnipotence? Or is the unmoved mover bound by logic?

I would put myself in the camp that holds that God cannot create logical contradictions such as a square circle or a rock so heavy even He can’t lift it, but I would argue these are not limitations and so He can still properly be called omnipotent. A real limitation would be if there was a possible, real capacity for something and God lacked this capacity. However, I’d argue that there is no such things a capacity for a logical contradiction. There is no capacity for a square circle, or a capacity for a rock so heavy even He can’t lift it. So God is not deprived of any actual real or possible capacity, so there is no limitation. A being of pure act has no privations, so this would all follow. On this side of things, God could not terminate His own existence, as there would be no such capacity for that to be done.

On the other side of things, there are those who hold that God can create logical contradictions, such as a square circle. It also means He could create a rock so heavy that He couldn’t lift it. And it also means that He could lift that rock. For those who hold that God can do the logically impossible, I’m not sure if it means God could end His own existence. I don’t see why not, but I haven’t really read much by people who hold this position. But if that were the case He could probably keep existing even after He ended existence. That’s the problem. If God can make logical contradictions it isn’t really a gotcha because He can just circumvent the logic you tried to “gotcha” Him in.

 

[BlueMaxx]

Lemme help you out…

Ex Nihilio

From nothing everything…first He created, then He formed His creation…

Nothing from nothing leaves nothing… so out of nothing only nothing can come…

God, however is infinite…and out of His infinity He created everything from nothing…

Turtles all the way down…

 

[Bradskii]

Metaphysics takes over at the point where physics is at that paricular point. Almost by definition. So someone says ‘at the moment we don’t have the answer’ and all of a sudden people are all over the subject in hand eager to give their metaphysical view.

Until such time as science moves on. And then all our metaphysical chums take a step back and say: ‘OK, now we’ll start the disussion from this new point over here’.

And I have NEVER seen a metaphysical approach to the beginning of existence that didn’t start with the assumption of God. In EVERY case the person proposing a metaphysical answer has already, either explicitly or implicitly, decided what the answer is going to be.

In EVERY case you are starting with an implied answer and are looking for questions whose answers lead to it.

If a person had zero knowledge of God then to suggest that he would arrive at the Judeo Christian version of a deity simply by sitting in his armchair and mulling it over is laughable.

Apologies for being so blunt. But it needs to be said. The emperor has no clothes.

 

[IWantGod]

Metaphysics takes over at the point where physics is at that paricular point.

Metaphysics does not take over questions that are strictly the subject of science. Metaphysics is primarily concerned with being as being. What does it mean for a thing to exist as opposed to not exist. Why is there something rather than nothing at all. How did something that did not exist become an actual thing. Why is there such a thing as change, and that is to say, how is it possible for something to move from potential to actual reality. Metaphysics does not ask about the particular nature of physical things and how they operate…

Metaphysics deals with being in a very general sense, and when you deal with being in a general sense you are justified in using the principle of non-contradiction to attain knowledge that science cannot answer in principle.

 

[IWantGod]

And I have NEVER seen a metaphysical approach to the beginning of existence that didn’t start with the assumption of God. In EVERY case the person proposing a metaphysical answer has already, either explicitly or implicitly, decided what the answer is going to be.

That’s just not true. The fact that people believe that they can use metaphysical arguments to prove God’s existence has no relevance to whether or not they succeed. So long as they are not circular arguments, you really have no argument. Just a tired biased skeptical opinion that has been regurgitated and not defended.very well.

 

[IWantGod]

Apologies for being so blunt. But it needs to be said. The emperor has no clothes.

The problem is you have already demonstrated that you don’t understand metaphysics as a subject matter, so i cannot really trust your conclusion.

 

[Wesrock]

Metaphysics takes over at the point where physics is at that paricular point. Almost by definition. So someone says ‘at the moment we don’t have the answer’ and all of a sudden people are all over the subject in hand eager to give their metaphysical view.

Until such time as science moves on. And then all our metaphysical chums take a step back and say: ‘OK, now we’ll start the disussion from this new point over here’.

Still begging the question, I see. Bradskii, metaphysical assumptions underlie your own views on the nature of being and knowledge, ontology and epistemology. You can’t avoid that. Or maybe you just don’t know what metaphysics actually is, because there’s no God of the gaps fallacy in the argument from motion made above. The idea that our observations convey real knowledge, that you can learn truths about things from empirical study, that under controlled conditions you can repeat empirical results. That’s all based on metaphysical assumptions you are implicitly making.

And I have NEVER seen a metaphysical approach to the beginning of existence that didn’t start with the assumption of God. In EVERY case the person proposing a metaphysical answer has already, either explicitly or implicitly, decided what the answer is going to be.

Anthony Flew was convinced by Aristotlean arguments.

If a person had zero knowledge of God then to suggest that he would arrive at the Judeo Christian version of a deity simply by sitting in his armchair and mulling it over is laughable.

That’s neither here nor there.

Apologies for being so blunt. But it needs to be said. The emperor has no clothes.

And all of this is one, big question begging non-response.

 

[AlNg]

First of all, it is not clear from the Bible and from God’s response to our prayers that God is Unmoved. In Holy Scripture, God was observed moving and walking around in a garden. God was observed to change His mind. Further, God came down from heaven and became man. And also, every time a Mass is said, according to the epiclesis, the Holy Spirit who is God changes the Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of Jesus.
Secondly, there is not universal acceptance of the idea that there was nothing before the BB. There is an alternative theory, namely the cyclical theory which claims that there was a never ending chain of BB and Big Crunch with the energy being supplied by gravity so that there is no violation of any entropic laws. There is nothing illogical about a line extending infinitely into the negative direction as this is assumed in mathematics all the time.

 

[Wesrock]

First of all, it is not clear from the Bible and from God’s response to our prayers that God is Unmoved. In Holy Scripture, God was observed moving and walking around in a garden. God was observed to change His mind. Further, God came down from heaven and became man. And also, every time a Mass is said, according to the epiclesis, the Holy Spirit who is God changes the Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of Jesus.

See objection Post # 7, Objection 4.

Secondly, there is not universal acceptance of the idea that there was nothing before the BB. There is an alternative theory, namely the cyclical theory which claims that there was a never ending chain of BB and Big Crunch with the energy being supplied by gravity so that there is no violation of any entropic laws. There is nothing illogical about a line extending infinitely into the negative direction as this is assumed in mathematics all the time.

I made no assumptions about what was or was not prior to the big bang. The question isn’t relevant to this discussion. As for an infinitely extending line of universes or cyclical universes, that doesn’t avoid the line of argumentation, and what my response to this is should be implicitly clear if you read the argument I presented, which I don’t believe you have, though once you’ve read it I’d be happy to offer additional clarification.

 

[AlNg]

See objection Post # 7, Objection 4.

This objection fails on its face for Christians and Catholics who believe in the power of prayer and the authenticity of Holy Scripture.

 

[AlNg]

that doesn’t avoid the line of argumentation, and what my response to this is should be implicitly clear if you read the argument I presented, which I don’t believe you have, though once you’ve read it I’d be happy to offer additional clarification.

“By logical necessity, there must be a cause to this series”
What rule of logic demands that there be a cause to this series outside of itself?

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

See objection Post # 7, Objection 4.

This objection fails on its face for Christians and Catholics who believe in the power of prayer and the authenticity of Holy Scripture.

For a Christian context, I already responded to you when you made this same objection elsewhere: God has no potentiality - so He can't take on a human nature? - #137 by Wesrock

I’d be happy to continue that line of discussion there.

However, your objection is irrelevant to the aim of this topic.

 

[AlNg]

Here you claim that God is Unmoved and so any claims that He moves by responding to prayer or changing His Mind or coming down from Heaven to become man or that God was observed walking in a garden are supposedly anthropomorphisms.

your objection is irrelevant to the aim of this topic.

Christianity is not irrelevant to the existence of God and the argument from motion. Christianity teaches that God came down from heaven and became man.

 

[Wesrock]

Here you claim that God is Unmoved and so any claims that He moves by responding to prayer or changing His Mind or coming down from Heaven to become man or that God was observed walking in a garden are supposedly anthropomorphisms.

Wesrock:

your objection is irrelevant to the aim of this topic.

Christianity is not irrelevant to the existence of God and the argument from motion. Christianity teaches that God came down from heaven and became man.

Please take this point up in that other topic. Whether or not this argument is compatible with Christianity is irrelevant as to whether this argument logically follows.

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

that doesn’t avoid the line of argumentation, and what my response to this is should be implicitly clear if you read the argument I presented, which I don’t believe you have, though once you’ve read it I’d be happy to offer additional clarification.

“By logical necessity, there must be a cause to this series”
What rule of logic demands that there be a cause to this series outside of itself?

I laid out a line of logic through the entirety of post# 2 and the first half of post# 3. The statement “By logical necessity, there must be a cause…” was the conclusion of it. It may help to reread that portion.

If all of the causal power in an hierarchical series is derived and something any member of the series just has inherently, it doesn’t matter how long or circular the series is, that series lacks all causal power and therefore makes no logical sense. If an hierarchical series is being caused to exist, but none of these members have an underived capacity to cause something to exist, the series wouldn’t exist to begin with. It is analogous to asking why you can’t suspend a chandelier in space with a chain (finite or infinite) without actually attaching hooking the chain up to the ceiling.

If every member in an hierarchical series has G, but all of the members in the series have G by some other member of the series, we are left without a cause as to why the series has G at all. There just shouldn’t be any G. Adding more members, or having an infinite number of members, or having the members be related to each other in a circular fashion, even an infinite circle, does not resolve the situation.

 

[AlNg]

Your conclusion is not obtained by a rule of logic, but by an unwarranted assumption that the series must be hierarchical and not linear and further that your analogy of a chandelier hanging in space is a suitable analogy to what is going on in the real world. In the real situation, not in the contrived situation of an unhooked chandelier under the influence of the gravitation of the earth, there is the possibility of an infinite linear series of BB and Big Crunches caused by the energy given by gravity and dark matter.
Further, the earth is hanging in space and it is not hooked onto anything by any metal hook and still it does not fall down. There are more ways for a chandelier to hang suspended than only with a hook. There are forces such as magnetism which could cause it to be suspended in space even on earth without any hooks at all. Magicians suspend people in space all the time.

 

[MCH1]

Dunno.

With logic though, we can know.

 

[AlNg]

With philosophy though, we can know.

If so, why do so many philosophers disagree? take the trolley problem for example. Some philosophers say it is morally right to pull the lever, others will say it is morally wrong. Similarly with the Inquisition or with capital punishment or the Nuremberg trials.

 

[MCH1]

I meant that with philosophy and logic and we can know that God exists.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

And I have NEVER seen a metaphysical approach to the beginning of existence that didn’t start with the assumption of God. In EVERY case the person proposing a metaphysical answer has already, either explicitly or implicitly, decided what the answer is going to be.

That’s just not true. The fact that people believe that they can use metaphysical arguments to prove God’s existence has no relevance to whether or not they succeed.

Well I don’t think they succeed in any case, but that wasn’t the point I was making. Which was that every single metaphysical argument regarding existence and potentiality and prime movers etc that resulted in a ‘Gee, look. The answer is God’ was started by someone who ALREADY believed that the answer was going to be God.

Now call me skeptical if you like, but if you start with a belief that there is only one conclusion, then the questions that you ask and the responses that you give yourself will lead to only one answer.

And I’ve seen nothing, and I mean literally nothing, that hasn’t been a rehash of what some previously long dead card-carrying Christian used to justify his own beliefs. This thread being a case in point. Which serves only to preach to the converted.

‘It must be true because it confirms what I already believe’.

Start outside your belief system and the general response is bemusement. If you try the arguments out on a Hindu or an American Indian or a Jainist etc then what exactly would you expect?