The Existence of God: The Argument From Motion

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

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)?

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.

Is this supposed to refute the actuality/potential distinction? Seems to fit the point perfectly.

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!

Er… Did you read the argument?

 

[Sophia]

Is this supposed to refute the actuality/potential distinction? Seems to fit the point perfectly.

Not “refute”, to show that it is based upon the laws of nature, not some armchair-induced musings. And your proposed “unmoved mover” has no physical characteristics… does it?

Er… Did you read the argument?

In several interpretations. Philosophical arguments suffer from the fallacy of “generalizing from the particular to the whole”.

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

Is this supposed to refute the actuality/potential distinction? Seems to fit the point perfectly.

Not “refute”, to show that it is based upon the laws of nature, not some armchair-induced musings.

Of course it’s based upon the laws of nature (I’m interested in your thoughts on what a law of nature is, btw). The “laws of nature,” however, make no direct comment on change and persistence/identiy over time. The actuality/potentiality distinction is a metaphysical position that there is persistence in nature but that things also change, as opposed to alternatives (some alternatives: immutable worldblock, no change at all, the me typing THIS is completely unconnected to the me typing THAT (no persistence), nothing ever just is but is constantly in a state of becoming, etc…) . Again, there’s nothing mystical here. This isn’t some type of intangible force. I think you’re trying to “gotcha” a misconception in your head.

And your proposed “unmoved mover” has no physical characteristics… does it?

No, on the basis that having physical characteristics would require the actualization of a potential (and before asking why, I already addressed it in the first eight posts. It’s there if you actually want to hear).

Wesrock:

Er… Did you read the argument?

In several interpretations. Philosophical arguments suffer from the fallacy of “generalizing from the particular to the whole”.

How so? And where did I do so?

 

[Sophia]

No, on the basis that having physical characteristics would require the actualization of a potential

I have a problem with this whole “actual” and “potential” as you use them. Of course the world is not static, it is constantly changing. In the times of Aquinas people had the static world-view, and absolute space (like a huge, empty room) and a speck of “matter”, moving along some absolute time-line. Like a huge clockwork. Even in the times of Newton this was the accepted world-view. The “understanding” was that matter is “inert”, that motion must be applied from the “outside”.

Even the word “actualization” describes an outside agent , who imposes some action on the otherwise “inert” matter. That world-view is obsolete. There is no absolute space and time, no motionless existence. Einstein’s special and general relativity dispensed with these obsolete concepts.

That is the reason that all philosophical arguments based upon those assumptions are worthless.

 

[IWantGod]

That is the reason that all philosophical arguments based upon those assumptions are worthless.

If your argument wasn’t a complete straw-man i would probably agree with you, but it is.

 

[Bradskii]

AlNg:

Wesrock:

Broadly speaking: change; causality.

But you are assuming that everything has a cause.

Based on observation and experience with the world, I hold that…

Based on my experience and observation, I hold that it’s impossible for something to be in different places at the same time. And I hold that it’s impossible for a son to be older than his father (there’s lots more of these). But I’d be wrong.

So am I likely to get to some hidden truth if I start with an incorrect assumption?

 

[Wesrock]

Ah, interesting replies. Working on responding.