Why unmoved mover?

[IWantGod]

But if a contingent thing’s existence is preceded by its potential to exist, then there could never have been a time, even before the beginning of time, when potential didn’t exist. On the other hand, if the universe’s existence wasn’t preceded by its potential to exist, then its existence must be necessary.

The potential to exists signifies the possibility of a things existence in conjunction with something that is already actual. In-order for a possibility to be actual there has to be an actualizer. And in order for there to be a beginning something has to cause that beginning.

The fact that there is no before a temporal beginning does not in any way refute it’s contingency on something that already exists. If it refutes anything, it merely refutes the possibility of a temporal cause.

 

[MarysLurker]

But if a contingent thing’s existence is preceded by its potential to exist, then there could never have been a time, even before the beginning of time, when potential didn’t exist. On the other hand, if the universe’s existence wasn’t preceded by its potential to exist, then its existence must be necessary.

But we know from science that the universe is contingent.

 

[lelinator]

The potential to exists signifies the possibility of a things existence in conjunction with something that is already actual. In-order for a possibility to be actual there has to be an actualizer. And in order for there to be a beginning something has to cause that beginning.

The fact that there is no before a temporal beginning does not in any way refute it’s contingency on something that already exists. If it refutes anything, it merely refutes the possibility of a temporal cause.

But we’re still stuck with a conundrum. If the universe didn’t potentially exist before it actually existed, then its existence was always actual. There was never a point, temporal or otherwise, at which it only had the potential to exist. And if it didn’t have the potential to exist, then it couldn’t have been caused to exist, because causation is the actualization of potential. And if the universe wasn’t preceded by any potential, then it couldn’t have been caused.

Conversely, if it did potentially exist before it actually existed then there was never a time when there was only actuality without an accompanying potentiality. So if all that existed was the unmoved mover, the potential for something else must have also existed.

 

[lelinator]

But we know from science that the universe is contingent.

Sorry, no we don’t. Science has nothing to say on whether the universe is contingent or not.

 

[MarysLurker]

Science has nothing to say on whether the universe is contingent or not.

But science is entirely based on evaluating physical laws, laws which had to be in place before the Bang. And by those laws a steady state universe is out.

 

[lelinator]

But science is entirely based on evaluating physical laws, laws which had to be in place before the Bang. And by those laws a steady state universe is out.

Now you’ve made the same mistake that theists often accuse others of making, you’re assuming such a thing as “before” the big bang. As “before” there were the laws of physics. Such a thing as “before” time is a logical contradiction

We can agree that something must exist necessarily, but what would seem to be questionable is the need for an unmoved mover of the type espoused by Aquinas et al.

 

[IWantGod]

If the universe didn’t potentially exist before it actually existed,

There wasn’t a before it’s beginning temporally speaking, but the idea is that we are still talking about something that is contingent precisely because it’s a finite temporal object and therefore something is causing it’s existence. Obviously that cause cannot be of a temporal/physical nature.

A problem only arises if we are arguing for a temporal cause, and even with that problem it still requires a cause.

 

[lelinator]

A problem only arises if we are arguing for a temporal cause, and even with that problem it still requires a cause.

No, the problem goes beyond that. Causation involves the actualization of potential. If the universe never had the potential to exist, then it couldn’t have been caused, it must have always existed.

If on the other hand it did at some point, temporal or otherwise, have the potential to exist, then what preceded it, temporal or otherwise, must be a combination of potentiality and actuality.

 

[IWantGod]

If the universe never had the potential to exist,

Just because the beginning of the universe has no before it’s existence doesn’t mean the possibility of it’s existence hasn’t been actualized. It just means that the cause effect relationship in this case cannot be understood in temporal/physical terms.

It really doesn’t matter if you are having difficulty understanding because as soon as you admit that the universe has a contingent nature it follows that we are not talking about something that necessarily exists. Therefore it requires a cause regardless of any apparent problem.

But you are free to argue for the existential necessity of a being that is comprised of actualized potential.

 

[lelinator]

But you are free to argue for the existential necessity of a temporal being that is comprised of potential effects.

Until you can demonstrate otherwise I will indeed argue that the universe with all of its accompanying temporal effects, is just as necessary as your proposed unmoved mover.

And in fact I have so demonstrated that your argument for an unmoved mover is logically inconsistent, because it posits the existence of a cause with no potentiality to actualize. Therefore it can’t cause anything.

 

[MarysLurker]

And in fact I have so demonstrated that your argument for an unmoved mover is logically inconsistent, because it posits the existence of a cause with no potentiality to actualize. Therefore it can’t cause anything

But the UM is potentiality/actualization itself. Otherwise you need another cause before it and then you have an infinite train of cabooses aka steady state universe (which was scientifically disproven).

And by virtue of holding to a universe with immutable constants, you agree that there exist causes that are actualized prior to time. If E=mc^2 wasn’t real at time zero there would be no universe.

 

[lelinator]

And by virtue of holding to a universe with immutable constants, you agree that there exist causes that are actualized prior to time. If E=mc^2 wasn’t real at time zero there would be no universe.

No, just as you can argue for the existence of an unmoved mover without need of a cause, I can argue that existence itself, with all that it encompasses, has no need of a cause.

SORRY, I’VE REACHED THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF REPLIES FOR A NEW USER. SO YOU TWO WIN BY DEFAULT.

CONGRATULATIONS

 

[MarysLurker]

No, just as you can argue for the existence of an unmoved mover without need of a cause, I can argue that existence itself, with all that it encompasses, has no need of a cause

That would make existence or Being or I AM Itself the Unmoved Mover. That is in fact what we believe. So we agree. We just have different labels on things.

(With the caveat that things existing within existence itself do require causes, as set forth below.)

specific things in it, a flying spaghetti monster, however, all have properties that require an external cause, therefore none of them could be the unmoved move

 

[IWantGod]

Until you can demonstrate otherwise I will indeed argue that the universe with all of its accompanying temporal effects, is just as necessary as your proposed unmoved mover.

It’s clearly not since it is comprised of actualised potential evidently.

 

[MarysLurker]

SORRY, I’VE REACHED THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF REPLIES FOR A NEW USER. SO YOU TWO WIN BY DEFAULT.

CONGRATULATIONS

It’s not a contest. . You’ll get more posts tomorrow. Til then have a good night!

 

[Wesrock]

Classically speaking, “moved” in this sense refers to any type of change or actualization of something that cannot bring itself into being. Things other than God were brought to being through God’s action and out of no pre-existing material.

 

[Wesrock]

MarysLurker:

And by virtue of holding to a universe with immutable constants, you agree that there exist causes that are actualized prior to time. If E=mc^2 wasn’t real at time zero there would be no universe.

No, just as you can argue for the existence of an unmoved mover without need of a cause, I can argue that existence itself, with all that it encompasses, has no need of a cause.

SORRY, I’VE REACHED THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF REPLIES FOR A NEW USER. SO YOU TWO WIN BY DEFAULT.

CONGRATULATIONS

Ah, but you got our line of argument backwards. There must be at least one thing without a cause for there to be anything else, and that which is without cause must not have properties which require a cause. Anything that begins to be, has extension in space, is made up of parts, undergoes change, is contingent, etc… must have a cause. Therefore the unmoved mover must be eternal, have no extension in space, not be made up of parts, must exist by intrinsic necessity, could not have possibly been other, etc… Reality as a whole, specific things in it, a flying spaghetti monster, however, all have properties that require an external cause, therefore none of them could be the unmoved mover. The argument for the unmoved mover makes no special pleading cases.

 

[RealisticCatholic]

Every change is the actualization of a potential.

To talk about creation is fundamentally different from change. We aren’t talking about the adjustment of some prior material.

 

[lelinator]

Every change is the actualization of a potential.

To talk about creation is fundamentally different from change. We aren’t talking about the adjustment of some prior material.

But what the unmoved mover argument is saying is that if we follow the trail of change backwards through time we must eventually come to some potential that was actualized by the unmoved mover, because an infinite regress of movers is impossible.

The whole argument rests upon the premise that at some point there was potential that was actualized by the unmoved mover, and not by anything else.

What potential was that?