Why unmoved mover?

[Mickey3456987]

On hierarchical sort of series of changer why this series must have first changer ?

And if so, how do we know this first changer must lack any potential?

 

[Gorgias]

On hierarchical sort of series of changer why this series must have first changer ?

Because otherwise you have infinite regress.

And if so, how do we know this first changer must lack any potential?

Because if he does, then he himself is moved – which means that we’re back to ‘infinite regress’.

 

[Wozza]

Mickey3456987:

On hierarchical sort of series of changer why this series must have first changer ?

Because otherwise you have infinite regress.

I’ve got no problem with that.

 

[Gorgias]

I’ve got no problem with that.

Interesting.

So, without someone to kick off a sequence, does the sequence exist at all?

Conversely, doesn’t the very existence of a sequence imply that there was a start to it and a cause of it?

 

[IWantGod]

I’ve got no problem with that.

The funny thing is neither did Aquinas.

The problem is not the possibility of an infinite regress (lets say one does actually exist), but rather it is the fact that every act in the sequence is an effect insomuch as it receives it’s actuality and by the power of that actuality gives rise to it’s effect. This kind of dependency in a series cannot infinitely regress unless the infinite series has a cause outside of itself, because every actuality in the series is itself an effect and none of them give rise to their own actuality. In other-words what you have is a series that doesn’t have a source for it’s actuality. Ultimately the series as a whole is receiving it from nowhere, from nothing at all. You just have a series of effects without an actual cause and therefore shouldn’t exist. And that is why Thomas argues for an actual uncaused cause.

To put it another way, in ontological terms, you cannot have an infinite dependency and nothing else. There has to be a being that is not dependent on something else for it’s existence in-order to justify the contingent existence of everything else.

 

[STT]

On hierarchical sort of series of changer why this series must have first changer ?

And if so, how do we know this first changer must lack any potential?

Unmoved mover is necessary to resolve the problem of existence. It is however impossible to show that unmoved mover is sentient, intelligent, etc.

 

[IWantGod]

It is however impossible to show that unmoved mover is sentient, intelligent, etc.

That’s not true.

Anything that does not necessarily exist according to it’s own nature is being sustained in existence and cannot exist otherwise. This proves that the uncaused cause has intentionality and therefore an intellect.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

I’ve got no problem with that.

Interesting.

So, without someone to kick off a sequence, does the sequence exist at all?

Conversely, doesn’t the very existence of a sequence imply that there was a start to it and a cause of it?

As far as we know, yes. It appears to everyone to be true. But then, something being in two places at the same time sounds kinda wrong. And a father being younger that his son isn’t right, either.

There are things that we don’t know. There are things that we know we don’t know. And there are things that we don’t know that we don’t know.

Did you know that?

 

[STT]

That’s not true.

It is true.

Anything that does not necessarily exist according to it’s own nature is being sustained in existence and cannot exist otherwise.

You need to show that uncaused cause is necessary. I don’t see nothingness as a impossibility. You also need to prove that something that is not necessary needs a sustainer.

This proves that the uncaused cause has intentionality and therefore an intellect.

There is a gap in here too. You need to show that something which is necessary has intentionality.

 

[IWantGod]

I don’t see nothingness as a impossibility

If absolutely nothing was a possibility, then only contingent beings would exist as a consequence, which is impossible because they wouldn’t get their existence from anywhere accept nothing at all.

Therefore your counter argument is flawed. There has to be a necessary uncaused cause.

 

[IWantGod]

You also need to prove that something that is not necessary needs a sustainer.

If something doesn’t exist necessarily according to it’s own nature then it cannot exist at all unless something is not only causing it to exist but also sustaining it’s existence. Otherwise you would have a contingent brute fact, and brute facts make no rational sense.

But you are welcome to infer a brute fact if you think it frees you from the responsibility of admitting the truth.

 

[STT]

If absolutely nothing was a possibility, then only contingent beings would exist as a consequence, which is impossible because they wouldn’t get their existence from anywhere accept nothing at all.

Therefore your counter argument is flawed. There has to be a necessary uncaused cause.

No. If there is nothing then there is nothing. Why you strive on the idea of contingent beings to reach to a conclusion? Something exist now so there should be an unmoved mover but nothingness is an possibility too.

 

[IWantGod]

No. If there is nothing then there is nothing. Why you strive on the idea of contingent beings to reach to a conclusion? Something exist now so there should be an unmoved mover but nothingness is an possibility too.

1. A thing either necessarily exists because of it’s own nature or because it is being cause to exist by something else (it is contingent).
2. If nothing is a possibility, then only contingent beings exist because no being is necessary.
3. Contingent beings cannot exist by their own nature alone.
4. Therefore there should be absolutely nothing.
5. But there isn’t absolutely nothing.

Conclusion: A necessary act of reality exists and it is the sustaining cause of all unnecessary things.

 

[STT]

If something doesn’t exist necessarily according to it’s own nature then it cannot exist at all unless something is not only causing it to exist but also sustaining it’s existence. Otherwise you would have a contingent brute fact, and brute facts make no rational sense.

But you are welcome to infer a brute fact if you think it frees you from the responsibility of admitting the truth.

Again, you need to show that something which is not necessary cannot exist. Of course any thing that exists has a nature.

 

[IWantGod]

Of course any thing that exists has a nature.

But not every nature that exists can be said to exist necessarily because of it’s own nature. If it’s nature does not necessarily exist, then it’s existence is either something that exists arbitrarily for no reason (something that a rational person will never accept because it’s illogical) or it’s existence is being caused to exist. Since it’s nature is not necessarily actual but only contingently actual, something must be sustaining it’s existence.

This follows necessarily and cannot be refuted.

 

[STT]

1. A thing either necessarily exists because of it’s own nature or because it is being cause to exist by something else ( it is contingent ).

No. A thing either exists or it doesn’t exist. A thing is either moved or it is unmoved. The unmoved mover is necessary as a matter of fact that something exist right now otherwise you cannot argue in favor of it. There was no need for an unmoved mover if there is nothing right now.

1. If nothing is a possibility, then only contingent beings exist because no being is necessary.

Not again. Second part of your statement doesn’t follow from the first one.

1. Contingent beings cannot exist by their own nature alone.

True.

1. Therefore there should be absolutely nothing.

It could be nothing. There is something right now but that is only a possibility. As I mentioned before that the idea of unmoved mover is based on the fact that something exist right now that we can all agree with it. The argument then follow and we can conclude that there should be an unmoved mover which is necessary. Its necessity however comes from the fact that something exist right now. If there is nothing right now then there was nothing in the past. So we are dealing with two possibilities. Both can be true but one is true right now.

1. But there isn’t absolutely nothing.

Conclusion: A necessary act of reality exists and it is the sustaining cause of all unnecessary things

This doesn’t really follow.

Moreover, it would be nice of you to answer my others questions.

 

[STT]

But not every nature that exists can be said to exist necessarily because of it’s own nature. If it’s nature does not necessarily exist, then it’s existence is either something that exists arbitrarily for no reason ( something that a rational person will never accept because it’s illogical ) or it’s existence is being caused to exist. Since it’s nature is not necessarily actual but only contingently actual, something must be sustaining it’s existence.

This follows necessarily and cannot be refuted.

Again, unmoved mover is necessary as a matter of fact that something exist right now. That is how its necessity follows.

 

[IWantGod]

No. A thing either exists or it doesn’t exist. A thing is either moved or it is unmoved. The unmoved mover is necessary as a matter of fact that something exist right now otherwise you cannot argue in favor of it. There was no need for an unmoved mover if there is nothing right now.

So you think all beings are contingent beings.

We are going to have to agree to disagree. Thanks for the discussion. God bless.

 

[meltzerboy2]

Are you saying that the first cause doesn’t really have to be a being at all; it might also be an inanimate first cause, or, if alive, not aware of its own existence?

Theism goes several steps further, of course. Not only is there a being aware of itself, but also a supremely and absolutely omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and benevolent Being, Who generates His love by His creation of the whole universe (and beyond, perhaps) and, particularly, mankind, the main focus of G-d’s love. If you then add to that the belief that all the manifestation of G-d, His love, and His law occurred on this one tiny planet in the universe, and finally, factor in the belief that your own religion is mainly the one that got all of G-d’s creation, His plan, His nature, His theological truth correct, while the others, good-intentioned as they might be, got some or most of this wrong, that’s quite a lot to process and accept, isn’t it?

 

[IWantGod]

Again, unmoved mover is necessary as a matter of fact that something exist right now. That is how its necessity follows.

You speak of necessity in the same sense that a hill necessarily requires a slope in-order for a ball to roll down. But i am not talking about the necessary behaviour and relationships between contingent things. I am talking about existential necessity, ontological necessity. I am talking about the fact that a thing exists and why it exists. A nature either exists necessarily irrespective of anything else, or it is contingent. If nothing exists necessarily then only contingent things exist. That is metaphysically impossible. Therefore an ontologically necessary act of reality exists regardless of whether there are contingent beings or not, that is to say, contingent beings are only possible if a necessary being exists.