The Existence of God: The Argument From Motion

[AlNg]

A “mover” would just be a cause of some sort.

That brings us to the question of free will and free choice. If our choices are free, it means that there are no causes external to ourselves which cause our choice. IOW, our choice depends only on ourselves being the first cause. But even if we are the first cause of our choice, it does not prove that we are a god.
Further, the ontological argument has been debunked in the sense that most philosophers do not accept it as proving that God exists. But all arguments attempting to prove the existence of God are ontological in some sense since they move from our concept of causality to the existence of the first cause. Moving from a concept to the existence of something is what the ontological argument is all about.

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

A “mover” would just be a cause of some sort.

That brings us to the question of free will and free choice. If our choices are free, it means that there are no causes external to ourselves which cause our choice. IOW, our choice depends only on ourselves being the first cause. But even if we are the first cause of our choice, it does not prove that we are a god.
Further, the ontological argument has been debunked in the sense that most philosophers do not accept it as proving that God exists. But all arguments attempting to prove the existence of God are ontological in some sense since they move from our concept of causality to the existence of the first cause. Moving from a concept to the existence of something is what the ontological argument is all about.

You’re mixing up the ontological and cosmological arguments.

(1) The ontological argument attempts to prove the existence of God a priori argument and has nothing to do with causation.

(2) The cosmological arguments are a posteriori, argued based on our knowledge of an experience of reality. What does “all arguments attempting to prove the existence of God in some sense” even mean? You could easily make the same objection to the epistemology behind the scientific method, the idea that there is a real world beyond our experience, that our scientific theories on nature, etc… You’re muddying the waters here and reaching badly.

As for “If our choices are free, it means that there are no causes external to ourselves which cause our choice,” you’re continuing to repeat this same point even though I’ve pointed out here and elsewhere that I reject this barebones definition of causation. I do not accept a priori that all causes produce necessary effects, such that the existence of a human person can be caused such that it then proceeds to act according to its own nature based on intrinsic principles. Furthermore, all our choices are caused insofar as there are objects that prompt our choices. If I choose to eat an apple, the apple on my counter is one of the causes behind my choice. It’s the object of the will. But it doesn’t negate the fact that my choice is voluntary.

But lastly, can you demonstrate that we have free choice and that you’re not just assuming it to be true? If you can’t demonstrate it, it’s no real objection to the argument as you haven’t pointed out anything wrong. If you can demonstrate it, you’re still just begging the question against the argument’s take on causation.

 

[Wesrock]

I should add a section on causation near the start of the argument.

 

[AlNg]

But lastly, can you demonstrate that we have free choice and that you’re not just assuming it to be true? If you can’t demonstrate it, it’s no real objection to the argument as you haven’t pointed out anything wrong.

It is repugnant to deny that humans have free will. For one thing, to deny that a criminal has free will means that he was not free when he killed his wife or when he shot people while he was robbing the bank. So since his actions were predetermined and due to reasons beyond his control, he should not be punished. IOW, if your suggestion is true, then all criminals should be set free. So your suggestion that humans do not have free will flies in the face of criminal justice laws in just about every country on the face of the earth today.

cosmological arguments are a posteriori , argued based on our knowledge of an experience of reality.

You are abstracting from that experience of reality to leap to the existence of something outside of your experience. This is similar to the ontological argument, where you leap from a notion of perfection derived from various experiences such as a perfect child, or a perfect theorem, to the existence of something perfect.

 

[STT]

STT:

Anything which is not actualized has potential to move. We have two sort of things though: (1) stable and (2) unstable. Stable thing needs a external mover whereas unstable thing does not need a mover.

I asked for examples of stable things and unstable things. I’m waiting, because I’ve no idea what you’re referring to.

A stable system like when a stone in bottom of a hill. An unstable system like a stone which is on side of a hill. You need an external force to move the first one but the second one move without any need for an external force.

STT:

Because decision must be originated from us not the sustainer.

I referred to REPLY TO OBJECTION 7 for a reason as it’s pertinent to this objection. Let me restate it with some substitutions.

Furthermore, the objection also makes assumptions about causation that we need not necessarily make. For it may just be in the nature of the human will to have free will , and in that sense the efficient cause of the will is the cause of the free will itself. It may be easier to think of causation in terms of “ontological dependence” instead of purely mechanical reactions. Furthermore, for a cause to be sufficient to explain its effect, it is not necessary that it cause it in a deterministic way. It need only make the effect intelligible.To simply say you do not accept this view of causation or you do not accept natures would be to beg the question.

To expand on this more, I do not accept that proposition that all causes produce necessary effects. I disagree with your restricted understanding of causation. To be a cause of the human person only means that it causes it to continue operating according to its voluntary nature. It does not remove the will’s ability to choose. Therefore choices are made by the will itself. Stating that the will is ontologically dependent on a cause does not mean it is involuntary.

Here is my argument first argument:

1. Free decision requires essence
2. Something which has essence dose need a sustainer
3. Therefore something which can freely decide does not need a sustainer

Here is my second argument

1. The knowledge of a free decision is needed to sustain a free decision
2. It is impossible to know a free decision
3. Therefore one cannot sustain a decision

 

[Wesrock]

It is repugnant to deny that humans have free will. For one thing, to deny that a criminal has free will means that he was not free when he killed his wife or when he shot people while he was robbing the bank. So since his actions were predetermined and due to reasons beyond his control, he should not be punished. IOW, if your suggestion is true, then all criminals should be set free. So your suggestion that humans do not have free will flies in the face of criminal justice laws in just about every country on the face of the earth today.

I never said that humans didn’t have free will. I asked if you felt you could demonstrate that they do. Anyway, that’s really neither here nor there. What’s more relevant is that we’ve no good reason to accept the restricted definition of causation that you’re using which states that all causes produce only necessary effects.

You are abstracting from that experience of reality to leap to the existence of something outside of your experience. This is similar to the ontological argument, where you leap from a notion of perfection derived from various experiences such as a perfect child, or a perfect theorem, to the existence of something perfect.

Abstraction can be said to apply to any use of reason from experience to general principles. That includes epistemological methods. What you’re essentially suggesting is that things can change or come into existence without cause, whether that be our perceptions, the dead body that found in the forest, or the conclusions we believe are based on reason. (Note: This doesn’t mean there’s no bad reasoning, or bad brain wiring, or quantum level activity. You’re denying that things need causes altogether).

And again, the ontological argument is an a priori argument. Stop trying to cast it as something else. It’s not based on experience, it’s supposed to be true by definition.

 

[Wesrock]

A stable system like when a stone in bottom of a hill. An unstable system like a stone which is on side of a hill. You need an external force to move the first one but the second one move without any need for an external force.

No, STT. What you’re essentially proposing here is that the stone rolls down the hill without a cause. That’s simply not true. Gravity, for one, is always a causal factor as to why the stone would roll down the hill. We would also expect there to have been something else, such as a breeze, a tremor in the Earth, the shifting of the soil it sits on, or something else that would cause it to roll down a hill. This so-called “unstable thing” is still caused to roll down the hill.

Here is my argument first argument:

1. Free decision requires essence
2. Something which has essence dose need a sustainer
3. Therefore something which can freely decide does not need a sustainer

1. What do you mean by essence?
2. Begs the question and rather just assumes the conclusion. Why would something which has essence not need a sustainer?

Here is my second argument

1. The knowledge of a free decision is needed to sustain a free decision
2. It is impossible to know a free decision
3. Therefore one cannot sustain a decision

1. Why?
2. You’re speaking her of the way a human knows and perceives time and acts. I suggest reviewing REPLY TO STT OBJECTION 1 (in post# 57).

 

[AlNg]

I never said that humans didn’t have free will.

Here is what you said:

can you demonstrate that we have free choice and that you’re not just assuming it to be true?

If you believe that humans have free choice, then why would it be necessary to demonstrate that humans have free choice ?

What you’re essentially suggesting is that things can change or come into existence without cause,

With that you are assuming that the world came into existence. But there are those who say that the world did not come into existence but was always there. Also the causes can lie within the object itself as is the case for the cause of a free choice. The free choice is the responsibility of the person making that choice and not of something external to him. In some cases there is no need to postulate an external cause.

 

[Wesrock]

If you believe that humans have free choice, then why would it be necessary to demonstrate that humans have free choice ?

Because this topic isn’t directly about the topic of free will, but about whether the argument from motion holds. If you believe there is a contradiction based on a different topic not directly covered here, you can’t just beg the question by saying “free will,” you have to be able to provide a reasonable argument that (1) we do have free will and (2) that this actually contradicts the argument from motion, which in itself makes no presumption either way about whether we have free will or not.

With that you are assuming that the world came into existence. But there are those who say that the world did not come into existence but was always there.

See Post# 8, OBJECTION 5 and its reply.

Also the causes can lie within the object itself as is the case for the cause of a free choice. The free choice is the responsibility of the person making that choice and not of something external to him. In some cases there is no need to postulate an external cause.

I’ve responded to this numerous times. Rather than attempt to argue I am wrong, you just keep repeating the same point. Please present an argument about why all causes produce necessary effects. For I affirm that the free choice of a person is the responsibility of the person making that choice and not as if the person is being moved about like a puppet. A person can be ontologically dependent on an Unmoved Mover for his existence and still exercise voluntary will, for I am not saying the person’s choices are produced necessarily by the Unmoved Mover, only that the Unmoved Mover allows the person to operate according to his own intrinsic principles and according to that person’s individual nature. To say that the person is caused to exist and operate according to his own nature is sufficient to make the voluntary choices made from his intrinsic will explicable.

A rough analogy. An electrical generator is a moment-to-moment cause of a computer’s operation. This simply allows the computer to operate and be operated according to how the computer is programmed. The electrical generator doesn’t itself dictate the computer’s operation or how it’s used.

Furthermore, again, on the other side of things, you disregard the object of the will’s role in prompting a choice at all, and again, not that the choice is produced necessarily by the object of the will, but that it still remains a cause of the movement.

 

[AlNg]

Due to several factors, such as symbiotic interdependencies, or even obligate endosymbiosis, a complex system generally will have properties that differ substantially from properties of an individual member.

 

[STT]

STT:

A stable system like when a stone in bottom of a hill. An unstable system like a stone which is on side of a hill. You need an external force to move the first one but the second one move without any need for an external force.

No, STT. What you’re essentially proposing here is that the stone rolls down the hill without a cause. That’s simply not true. Gravity, for one, is always a causal factor as to why the stone would roll down the hill. We would also expect there to have been something else, such as a breeze, a tremor in the Earth, the shifting of the soil it sits on, or something else that would cause it to roll down a hill. This so-called “unstable thing” is still caused to roll down the hill.

No, gravity is not an external force. Yet I can give you a system with potential energy V=-x^2 which is unstable where x is the filed operator related to existence of particle. The example of stable system is V=x^2.

STT:

Here is my argument first argument:

1. Free decision requires essence
2. Something which has essence dose need a sustainer
3. Therefore something which can freely decide does not need a sustainer

1. What do you mean by essence?

A property or group of properties of something without which it would not exist or be what it is.

1. Begs the question and rather just assumes the conclusion. Why would something which has essence not need a sustainer?

Because the free decision is originated from essence not from sustainer.

STT:

Here is my second argument:

1. The knowledge of a free decision is needed to sustain a free decision
2. It is impossible to know a free decision
3. Therefore one cannot sustain a decision

1. Why?

I don’t understand where do your objection is reffereing to.

1. You’re speaking her of the way a human knows and perceives time and acts. I suggest reviewing REPLY TO STT OBJECTION 1 (in post# 57).

I am aware of definition timeless God. But there is a issue related to this picture. Suppose that one know the decision he is going to make according to God’s foreknowledge. This person has free will, therefore he could do opposite of what he is informed. This is a contradiction.

 

[Wesrock]

I plan on continuing this topic and responding to the most recent posts. I hope this isn’t seen as shameless bumping, I did put a lot of time into the initial posts and would not like to see the topic locked yet.

 

[IWantGod]

No problem…

 

[IWantGod]

What caused the Big Bang?

Dunno.

The End (all else is sophistry).

The real qeustion is why does change exist at all. At the end of the day change is an actualized potential or possibility, so what ultimately causes change cannot be described as also being a product of potential and neither can it be described as that which is in the process of changing or becoming. So we can at the very least know that the cause is not changing and is not an actualized potential.

This in my view is not sophistry at all. It is an irrefutable fact that follows necessarily from the fact that things are changing.

It’s irrelevant whether or not there was anything changing before the big-bang. To even bring it up suggests to me that either you don’'t believe we can make inferences outside of the scientific method, or that you are only interested in making straw-men. I would prefer to believe that you are a fan of scientism.

 

[IWantGod]

Dunno. And can’t ever know.

That is a scientifically satisfying answer.

But we are not doing science here, we are doing metaphysics. I agree that science, as a method, cannot know. But i fail to understand why anyone would think that this limitation on science necessarily implies a limitation on any other method of knowing.

Are you of the opinion that metaphysics as expressed by Aquinas and Aristotle cannot provide a real system of knowledge? Do you reject metaphysics?

 

[IWantGod]

@Wesrock Can you show us how Aquinas proves that God’s nature is not made of parts and is instead simple. Why is God not complex?

 

[Sophia]

Are you of the opinion that metaphysics as expressed by Aquinas and Aristotle cannot provide a real system of knowledge? Do you reject metaphysics?

Yes! I reject! All capitals: YES!

Metaphysics without a suitable epistemology to separate true and false statements is empty speculation. In the ancient times, there was only speculation, so there was only metaphysics. As our real knowledge grew, and our epistemology was able to “weed out” empty speculation we achieved science, which is based upon the ability of separating true and false statements about reality.

BTW, there is another branch of obtaining knowledge, in the axiomatic, abstract sciences. But that is founded on some arbitrarily accepted axioms, which have only one requirement, they must be internally consistent. Some of their methods can be used as a tool for science. But only as a tool.

However, when it comes to investigate the objective, external reality, there is only one reliable method: observation, hypothesis forming, experimenting, comparing the results of the experiments with the predicted outcome, and finally - if the result was satisfactory - accepting the hypothesis as a working model of the reality, or modifying / discarding it if the experiment refuted the hypothesis, that is the one and only method to obtain KNOWLEDGE about the objective, external reality.

The subjective assessment of reality is different. Whether a picture is beautiful, whether a music is pleasing are fully subjective.

Remember: “nihil est in intellectu quod non prius fuerit in sensu”. Everything we know starts with observation as the foundation of all knowledge.

 

[IWantGod]

Remember: “ nihil est in intellectu quod non prius fuerit in sensu ”. Everything we know starts with observation as the foundation of all knowledge.

Well lets test the assumption that we cannot know anything to be true outside of the scientific method.

Do you reject the following statement as being true…

If something does not exist, it cannot cause itself to exist.

 

[AlNg]

Are you of the opinion that metaphysics as expressed by Aquinas and Aristotle cannot provide a real system of knowledge? Do you reject metaphysics?

First of all, what is metaphysics and is physics part of metaphysics? Secondly, the speculative nature of metaphysics has led both Aquinas and Aristotle to commit serious errors. So serious in fact, that it has led to the horrific death by burning alive at the stake of many people

 

[Sophia]

Do you reject the following statement as being true…

If something does not exist, it cannot cause itself to exist.

I reject it as a syntactically correct, but meaningless proposition. Pretty much on par with “the sweet taste of the sound of middle-C is green, but it is hard to hold in your palm because it tends to float upward”. Or “ezo kaperok worop rabnul”.

Trivially self evident principles need no justification. They are “brute facts”. (and as such they refute the universality of the concept of PSR.) After all every system needs a foundation, because explanations cannot go to infinity (or do you propose: “it is turtles all the way down?” ). We all experience the physical reality via our senses and their extensions. If you wish to call this “metaphysics”, be my guest. I just call it a trivial proposition.

By the way: “there is no difference between a nonexistent table and a nonexistent flower”. “Nothing” is just a concept, not an ontological entity. It is nonsensical to speak of a “nonexistent something” as being able to perform any action. The proposition “here is a nonexistent table, with an imaginary book on it, which contains a never-written curriculum vitae about a made-up person”… is a syntactically correct, but semantically nonsensical statement. Just because the paper (or the computer screen) does not reject nonsensical propositions, one should not “abuse” these mediums by making meaningless propositions on them.

Let’s stick to reality. Physical reality first, because we experience it. If you wish to stipulate a different kind of “reality” (spiritual?), that is fine, but in that case it is your job to provide the epistemological method to find out if a proposition about that new kind of “reality” evaluates to true or false. For example: “the final score in the soccer game between the angels and the demons had to be decided by penalty kicks, and the demons won 4:3”. This epistemological method MUST be objective, and others must be able to perform it. Not much of a restriction, I would say. You make a proposition about your alleged reality, and tell ME how to decide if your proposition is correct or not.

Go for it.