Defining the Supreme - motion

[lightgigantic]

(1) Everything in the material world is in motion.
(2) If something is in motion, then it must be caused to be in motion by something outside of itself.
(3) There can be no infinite chain of movers/movees.
(4) So there is a first, unmoved mover; He moves, but out of His own will.
(5) Therefore, the Supreme or Ultimate Reality exists.

Cause is also quite similar (Aristotle and Aquinas)

(1) In the material world everything has a cause. One who cannot see the cause says “chance”.
(2) The effects must be caused by something outside of itself.
(3) There can be no infinite cause/effect chains.
(4) As a person can’t walk on quicksand.
(5) So, there is a first, uncaused Cause.
(6) Therefore, the Supreme or Ultimate Reality exists.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

(1) Everything in the material world is in motion.
(2) If something is in motion, then it must be caused to be in motion by something outside of itself.
(3) There can be no infinite chain of movers/movees.
(4) So there is a first, unmoved mover; He moves, but out of His own will.
(5) Therefore, the Supreme or Ultimate Reality exists.

1) Take out the word 'material' and I'll buy that.
2) Atoms disagree.
3) Why?
4) N/A because of 2 and probably 3.
5) N/A because of 4

 

[lightgigantic]

1) Take out the word 'material' and I'll buy that.
2) Atoms disagree.

and guess what happens when you enter into the complexities of atoms

 

[James R]

(1) Everything in the material world is in motion.

Might be better expressed as: all material things are in motion.

(2) If something is in motion, then it must be caused to be in motion by something outside of itself.

No. See Newton's first law of motion.

(3) There can be no infinite chain of movers/movees.

Can't see the relevance of this, and it is not obvious that it must be true anyway.

(4) So there is a first, unmoved mover; He moves, but out of His own will.

You seem to be deriving a personality for this "mover" from somewhere. Where, I don't know.

(5) Therefore, the Supreme or Ultimate Reality exists.

Doesn't follow from above.

Cause is also quite similar (Aristotle and Aquinas)

(1) In the material world everything has a cause. One who cannot see the cause says “chance”.

Disproven by quantum physics.

(2) The effects must be caused by something outside of itself.

Meaningless, unless you can make it specific.

(3) There can be no infinite cause/effect chains.

Prove it.

(4) As a person can’t walk on quicksand.

And butterflies don't play golf...

(5) So, there is a first, uncaused Cause.

Need to establish (3) first.

(6) Therefore, the Supreme or Ultimate Reality exists.

Doesn't follow from the above. Non-sequitur.

 

[lightgigantic]

JamesR

“
(2) If something is in motion, then it must be caused to be in motion by something outside of itself.
”
No. See Newton's first law of motion.

Yes. See Newton's third law

“
(3) There can be no infinite chain of movers/movees.
”
Can't see the relevance of this, and it is not obvious that it must be true anyway.

if movement is due to a cause outside of oneself, it should be obvious

“
(4) So there is a first, unmoved mover; He moves, but out of His own will.
”
You seem to be deriving a personality for this "mover" from somewhere. Where, I don't know.

personality, is not really an issue at this point - (although you could ponder it further, whether independence is possible without the medium of consciousness)

“
Cause is also quite similar (Aristotle and Aquinas)

(1) In the material world everything has a cause. One who cannot see the cause says “chance”.
”
Disproven by quantum physics.

perhaps it would be more correct to say that quantum physics theorizes that this can be disproven ...

“
(2) The effects must be caused by something outside of itself.
”
Meaningless, unless you can make it specific.

can you specify some effect that is non-different from the cause?

“
(3) There can be no infinite cause/effect chains.
”
Prove it.

“
(4) As a person can’t walk on quicksand.
”
And butterflies don't play golf...

if there were infinite cause/effect chains, walking on quicksand wouldn't be so predictable

 

[Nasor]

(1) Everything in the material world is in motion.
(2) If something is in motion, then it must be caused to be in motion by something outside of itself.
(3) There can be no infinite chain of movers/movees.
(4) So there is a first, unmoved mover; He moves, but out of His own will.
(5) Therefore, the Supreme or Ultimate Reality exists.

The problem with this argument is that even if you accept it as valid (and many people have pointed out problems with it), you haven’t accomplished anything more than proving that there was some original source of energy/motion in the universe. It doesn’t imply anything about that source – there’s no reason to believe that such a source had to be a conscious entity that did things deliberately. Maybe it was some sort of random quantum vacuum fluctuation, or some sort of other unfathomable process/event that doesn’t have anything to do with “god.”

 

[Crunchy Cat]

and guess what happens when you enter into the complexities of atoms

The interaction of the atoms constituents is not an external factor (it's an internal one). Also, atom-sized entities and smaller are all in a superposition flux. If you could shrink down to the size of a quark and watch it, you would see that it is a blur of superposition.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

The problem with this argument is that even if you accept it as valid (and many people have pointed out problems with it), you haven’t accomplished anything more than proving that there was some original source of energy/motion in the universe. It doesn’t imply anything about that source – there’s no reason to believe that such a source had to be a conscious entity that did things deliberately. Maybe it was some sort of random quantum vacuum fluctuation, or some sort of other unfathomable process/event that doesn’t have anything to do with “god.”

IMO, his argument broke down at 2). Actually, come to think of it, it broke down before 1). He made a conclusion "'God' exists" and is attempting to find evidence for it... rather than the other way around.

 

[Sarkus]

(1) Everything in the material world is in motion.

Please can you define what you mean by "motion".

All motion is relative - so what are you using as your frame of reference?

 

[Yorda]

no-thing really moves because, just like in movie, the pictures have no time to move because the zero-duration-present-moment is all there is. if real motion existed, we wouldn't need to make our movies of pictures, we could make "real motion".

but even though everything is relative/illusion, it must still have been caused by something, and the only thing that can cause anything is no-thing.

 

[lightgigantic]

The problem with this argument is that even if you accept it as valid (and many people have pointed out problems with it), you haven’t accomplished anything more than proving that there was some original source of energy/motion in the universe. It doesn’t imply anything about that source – there’s no reason to believe that such a source had to be a conscious entity that did things deliberately. Maybe it was some sort of random quantum vacuum fluctuation, or some sort of other unfathomable process/event that doesn’t have anything to do with “god.”

what it does indicate about the source (at (3) ) is that the ultimate cause of motion must be something that is beyond the constraints of material laws (ie independent) - and consciousness, particularly that of god's fulfills this criteria

(BTW a syllogism is not an argument for evidence but an argument of logic))

 

[lightgigantic]

The interaction of the atoms constituents is not an external factor (it's an internal one). Also, atom-sized entities and smaller are all in a superposition flux. If you could shrink down to the size of a quark and watch it, you would see that it is a blur of superposition.

of course there are many suppositions on why atoms behave the way they do, but until they are solved, you can not say that they are examples of something that is moving for reasons that are not external ( as it remains at the moment, they are examples of things that move for reasons not fully understood - to say more than that wouldn't be science)

 

[lightgigantic]

IMO, his argument broke down at 2). Actually, come to think of it, it broke down before 1). He made a conclusion "'God' exists" and is attempting to find evidence for it... rather than the other way around.

the only criteria for a syllogism is that it is logically credible - pursuing the truth of the matter is something else (in other words before one undertakes the pursuit for evidence, they generally search for logical possibilities)

 

[lightgigantic]

Please can you define what you mean by "motion".

All motion is relative - so what are you using as your frame of reference?

making that statement supports (1) as opposed to challenging it

 

[lightgigantic]

no-thing really moves because, just like in movie, the pictures have no time to move because the zero-duration-present-moment is all there is.

physics disagrees
so do people who have been hit by cars

if real motion existed, we wouldn't need to make our movies of pictures, we could make "real motion".

but even though everything is relative/illusion,

everything is illusion for as long as it is relative to relative things

it must still have been caused by something,

hence the cause is not relative

and the only thing that can cause anything is no-thing.

the only thing that can cause anything is the source of everything
- describing it as nothing certainly doesn't explain how one arrived at the position of something (0+0=0)

 

[Cris]

LG,

the only thing that can cause anything is the source of everything

Except if the universe is infinitely cyclic or simply infinite. Which fits well with observations like - every action has an equal and opposite reaction, and nothing is ever created or destroyed just transformed form one state to another.

 

[lightgigantic]

LG,

Except if the universe is infinitely cyclic or simply infinite.

no arguments against that here, but it doesn't explain the cause of such cycles (ie motion)

 

[Cris]

LG,

no arguments against that here, but it doesn't explain the cause of such cycles (ie motion)

Why must there be a cause? In an infinite cycle a cause has no meaning.

 

[heliocentric]

You cant 'prove' god in this way, many great minds have tried and failed.
Youre better off with faith imo.

 

[ashura]

no arguments against that here, but it doesn't explain the cause of such cycles (ie motion)

How would you explain the cause of the cause?