Defining the Supreme - motion

[Sarkus]

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

Where am I challenging it?
All I have asked you to do is define your notion of "motion" - which I note you have singularly failed to do. Please have the decency to now define what you mean by "motion".

Then, once you have defined that - please indicate the reference frame that you are using.


This latter request in no way supports (1). You claim ALL objects are in motion.
My comment is that ALL MOTION is relative.

So please indicate where the commen that ALL MOTION IS RELATIVE supports your claim that ALL OBJECTS ARE IN MOTION.

You fail in your logic again, LG.


Now please just have the decency to answer the questions asked of you.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

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)

I can say there is no evidence that atoms are moving becuase of something external and there is evidence that they are moving because of something internal; otherwise, I agree.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

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)

If the premise chain has no concrete starting points then syllogism isn't grounded to reality.

 

[Enmos]

Might the nett movement in the universe be zero ?

 

[audible]

Defining the Supreme - motion

the one I did this morning after last night's curry, Wow!
that was the motion of all motions, a good half hour jobby.

 

[lightgigantic]

the one I did this morning after last night's curry, Wow!
that was the motion of all motions, a good half hour jobby.

if it compares to your posts, I can imagine ...

 

[lightgigantic]

LG,

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

its the contribution of the cause that makes it continuous- for instance remove the heart beat from a person, and the cycle of respiration is finished

 

[lightgigantic]

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

faith begins the process, yes, and moving to that point may require a logical argument or two ...

How would you explain the cause of the cause?

that's the point of the OP

the nature of things indicates something that is causeless

Where am I challenging it?
All I have asked you to do is define your notion of "motion" - which I note you have singularly failed to do. Please have the decency to now define what you mean by "motion".

not required

you have already said that all things are moving

I can say there is no evidence that atoms are moving becuase of something external and there is evidence that they are moving because of something internal; otherwise, I agree.

if one cannot discern the cause of movement, how can you discern whether it is external or internal?

If the premise chain has no concrete starting points then syllogism isn't grounded to reality.

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

true or false?

 

[Sarkus]

you have already said that all things are moving

WHERE???
I have NOT said that all things are moving.

You are being blatantly dishonest, LG.

Now answer the question!!
DEFINE what you mean by MOTION!

 

[lightgigantic]

WHERE???
I have NOT said that all things are moving.

You are being blatantly dishonest, LG.

Now answer the question!!
DEFINE what you mean by MOTION!

yes you did

All motion is relative

if you required a definition of motion, you wouldn't make such statements

 

[Nasor]

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

Like I said, you have only "proven" that there is (or was) some source of motion that is able to move without first being moved itself. You don't demonstrate that this hypothetical thing that can move without first being moved itself is conscious, has a will, or any of the other things that you associate with god. Perhaps this "first mover" had no consciousness or will, and simply flung motion into the rest of the universe randomly. There's no reason to assume that the "first mover" was any sort of entity.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

if one cannot discern the cause of movement, how can you discern whether it is external or internal?

Who said that the cause of movement cannot be discerned? Take people for example. If I push you then you moved due to an external cause (My energy was translated into work that moved you). If you moved on your own then your own internal energy translated into work that moved you.

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

true or false?

True, and there is a huge gap of absent grounding between 1) and 2).

 

[Sarkus]

yes you did

if you required a definition of motion, you wouldn't make such statements

Just answer the question, LG.

1. I have not said that all things are moving - just that all motion is relative. If you continue to state that I have said that all things are moving then YOU need to provide evidence of where I have said it - which you won't be able to do.

2. My understanding of "motion" is probably different to yours - hence YOU NEED TO DEFINE WHAT YOU MEAN BY "MOTION".

Anything else is just a continuation of your blatant disrespectful dishonesty that is endearing you to noone but your own fallacious sense of arrgogant self-importance.

 

[lightgigantic]

Like I said, you have only "proven" that there is (or was) some source of motion that is able to move without first being moved itself. You don't demonstrate that this hypothetical thing that can move without first being moved itself is conscious, has a will, or any of the other things that you associate with god.

it is demonstrated how it isn't matter, however

Perhaps this "first mover" had no consciousness or will, and simply flung motion into the rest of the universe randomly.

perhaps, but such a thing wouldn't be rational, or at least within our realm of experience - all causes of motion can be seen to be due to one of two things
1) consciousness
2) something we don't understand

There's no reason to assume that the "first mover" was any sort of entity.

there's no reason to think that the "first mover" was any sort of matter

 

[lightgigantic]

Who said that the cause of movement cannot be discerned? Take people for example. If I push you then you moved due to an external cause (My energy was translated into work that moved you). If you moved on your own then your own internal energy translated into work that moved you.

now you just have to locate the source of consciousness (after all, if you were dead, you couldn't push me, and if I was dead, I couldn't move on my own accord - further examination is required to discern what it is that a living person has that a dead person doesn't ????)

True, and there is a huge gap of absent grounding between 1) and 2).

the only way you could demonstrate that it wasn't rational, would be to provide evidence of something that moves independently

 

[Nasor]

There are so many conceptual problems here that I don’t even really know where to start. Maybe someone who is feeling more motivated could take the time to explain it.

 

[scorpius]

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

no its not,and even if it was so what

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

such as gravity maybe?
or to be honest we would have to say UNKNOWN forces.

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

why not? could be bazillions of them

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

not necesarily,even if there was,why wouldnt HE need a mover?
(btw HOW do you know its a HE???)...

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

just b/c reality ie universe exist,that dont prove god,
been reading the old retard Aquinas ,have you?

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.

if god exists,
and everything has a cause
WHAT caused God??

 

[lightgigantic]

scorpius
“

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
(1) Everything in the material world is in motion.
”
no its not

what is there that isn't in motion?

“
(2) If something is in motion, then it must be caused to be in motion by something outside of itself.
”
such as gravity maybe?

if its moving because of gravity, it would be moving because of something outside of itself

or to be honest we would have to say UNKNOWN forces.

thats ok

“
(3) There can be no infinite chain of movers/movees.
”
why not? could be bazillions of them

if that would be true, predicting cause and effect would tend to not be so predictable
“

(4) So there is a first, unmoved mover; He moves, but out of His own will.
”
not necesarily,even if there was,why wouldnt HE need a mover?
(btw HOW do you know its a HE???)...

see point three
as for the HE thing, it sufficient for now to talk of active as opposed to passive principles
“

(5) Therefore, the Supreme or Ultimate Reality exists.
”
just b/c reality ie universe exist,that dont prove god,
been reading the old retard Aquinas ,have you?

I see

Aquinas was wrong because you called him a "retard"

forgive me for not being convinced .....

“
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.
”
if god exists,
and everything has a cause
WHAT caused God??

if there is an infinite chain of cause and effects, how is that there is a degree of predictability in this world (like for instance petrol fumes are flammable, tree leaves fall to the ground and not into outer space etc etc)

 

[Pete]

Hi LG,
Made simpler, the argument is:

1) Everything that moves must have a moving mover
2) There can't be an infinite chain of movers
3) Therefore there must be something that moved without a mover

But 3) contradicts 1). So which one is false? Note that the argument is not a syllogism, by the way.


A more logical argument would be:

Movement exists.
If it is assumed that there is no infinite chain of movers or causes, then...
There must have been at least one case in which movement occured without a mover.

Now, assuming the truth of the assumption (no infinite chain), the argument does not show that there was only one prime mover, nor does it attach any other attributes to that prime mover, unless you make other unspecified assumptions (eg "material laws prohibit unmoved movers", or "Only God can be a prime mover")

 

[Sarkus]

I am still waiting for an answer, LG.
Please have the decency to provide one.