There’s some scientific evidence, but the universe could be a 3-torus cycling on itself and never had a beginning. We don’t know, and for this topic we don’t care.IWantGod:
OK. So there is no evidence of a beginning in time? Or if there is what would it be. The BB certainly would not be evidence of such because we have no knowledge of what occurred before the BB.
The title says Argument from Motion. What is meant by motion?
Broadly speaking: change; causality.Wesrock:
The title says Argument from Motion. What is meant by motion?
If you say something that isn’t already directly addressed and developed within the first eight posts, it would help.Wesrock:
So let me alter my argument. Change isn’t linear. You can’t follow a series of changes back to a first cause, because there isn’t one.
But you are assuming that everything has a cause. In particular, you need to prove that the universe as a whole has a cause. By assuming that the universe as a whole has a cause, are you not then assuming what you wanted to prove, namely that God is the cause of the universe? There may be arguments why the universe should or must have a cause but I am sorry to say that they have not convinced many atheists. OTOH, everyone is convinced that in Euclidean geometry the sum of the angles of a triangle must be pi radians or 180 degrees. If your argument is water tight, why do you suppose that genius Nobel prize winners do not accept it, whereas second year high school pupils and everyone else accepts the argument that a Euclidean triangle must have 180 degrees?
Based on observation and experience with the world, I hold that every potential that is actualized is actualized by another. (This is not the same thing as “everything has a cause,” which I do not hold.) I hold that there is good reason to suppose it is true, and good reason to hold it is more coherent than the alternatives, and it doesn’t involve special pleading.Wesrock:
But you are assuming that everything has a cause.
It follows from the demonstration above, and other arguments which I haven’t posted here.
Again, not assumed. I claim it has been demonstrated above.
To a degree, the argument is that this is the most rational position to take, which is less concrete. We can assume the universe is unintelligble and incoherent, that our senses don’t tell us anything real about reality, and if we make those assumptions, sure, the conclusion of an unmoved mover may not follow. But I argue that other positions range from less rational to irrational. Inquiry into first principles requires, admittedly, more abstract thinking, and moving our thinking into fields outside of how we’re normally used to thinking.
As I mentioned above:
It is a physical interaction between physical objects. On the lowest level of existence it is an interchange of elementary particles.
I am glad you took the time to read it, and that you agree that “nothing” is not an ontological entity. Yes, it is both about physics and metaphysics. It is about physics, because it deals with the observable physical reality. It is also about metaphysics, because it assumes that the whole external, objective reality belongs to this category.
Well, yes and no. All those self-evident principles come from observations (zillions of them) and NOT from armchair “musings” of philosophers. The principles of “preservation of matter, energy, momentum, etc…” all rely on the observations of physical objects. And they are based upon the wonderful “duck principle”. If you wish to call them “metaphysical principles”, that is fine, though it is too verbose without adding anything of substance.
This is simply not true. The three parts of philosophy can be summarized in a few words:
A physicist might say that the most rational position to take is the law of conservation of energy, which states that the total energy of an isolated system cannot change. Energy cannot be created, nor can it be destroyed, but it can change its form. According to the first law of thermodynamics, the total amount of energy in the universe has always been the same and will always be the same.
Yes, but that’s an isolated system.Wesrock:
A physicist might say that the most rational position to take is the law of conservation of energy, which states that the total energy of an isolated system cannot change. Energy cannot be created, nor can it be destroyed, but it can change its form. According to the first law of thermodynamics, the total amount of energy in the universe has always been the same and will always be the same.
Fact or Fiction?: Energy Can Neither Be Created Nor Destroyed - Scientific American
The central questions of metaphysics concern ontology, causality, identity and change, space and time, necessity and possibility. And the “self-evident,” “brute fact” principles you are comfortable holding as mere givens without (apparently) additional critical thinking.Wesrock:
This is simply not true. The three parts of philosophy can be summarized in a few words:
- Metaphysics - what exists?
- Epistemology - how do we know it?
- Ethics - so, how should we behave?
Why not read and respond to the actual topic argument instead of just responding to what are essentially just comments? Maybe give it a once over so you don’t respond piecemeal to things already addressed, then go through again with objections and comments.
You say with such religious zeal.
The universe is an isolated system, no?
Well, take the basic principle of the first law of thermodynamics, in other words the conservation laws of matter, energy, momentum etc. These are derived from observation, and they are falsifiable. Just one counter example would invalidate them. But as long as they “seem” to hold, there is no “place” for some “first mover”.
How does this in any way conflict with the Unmoved Mover as developed in the first eight posts of this topic (as opposed to some misconception you have in your head)?Wesrock:
Well, take the basic principle of the first law of thermodynamics, in other words the conservation laws of matter, energy, momentum etc. These are derived from observation, and they are falsifiable. Just one counter example would invalidate them. But as long as they “seem” to hold, there is no “place” for some “first mover”.
In every way. Your concept of “potential” is contingent upon the physical properties of the object. An ice cube cannot change into a theologian under the laws of nature. For every attempt to get to an “unmoved” mover, or an “uncaused cause” you present an argument in the form: “Our everyday experience shows us that things change.” Which is true, but irrelevant, because the apologist (you, in this case) immediately tries to extrapolate from the particular to the whole. And that attempt invalidates everything you say. Case closed!