Defining the Supreme - motion

[lightgigantic]

Hi LG,
Made simpler, the argument is:

1) Everything that moves must have a moving mover

the original was that "everything in the material world moves"

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.

god introduces the concept of duality - namely that he is unique because he is the foundation of the material world (as opposed to his foundation being in the material world)
hence there is no problem between 1 and 3

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")

hmmmm

I will get back to this a bit later perhaps

but just off the top of my head, if one advocates the possibility of there being several prime movers, they must be unified in some fashion, since the definition doesn't allow for one prime mover (A) to move another (B) and still enable (B) to be classified as a prime mover

 

[lightgigantic]

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

I've got nothing to post other than what is already said

and the same seems to be true of yourself ......
:shrug:

 

[Pete]

god introduces the concept of duality - namely that he is unique because he is the foundation of the material world (as opposed to his foundation being in the material world)
hence there is no problem between 1 and 3

Of course there is a problem. The two statements:
"Everything that moves must have a moving mover"
"There must be something that moved without a mover"
Are directly contradictory. If the first is true, the second is false, and vice versa.
Introducing a "material world" limitation is a red herring, adding needless complexity... either way, there must be at least one thing that moved without a mover (again, assuming the "no infinite chain" clause). Whether it/they exist in the material world or not is a separate question... and possibly irrelevant, since it seems a matter of arbitrary definition whether or not something is considered to exist in the material world.

but just off the top of my head, if one advocates the possibility of there being several prime movers, they must be unified in some fashion, since the definition doesn't allow for one prime mover (A) to move another (B) and still enable (B) to be classified as a prime mover

If A moved B, then B wouldn't be a prime mover.
If there were several prime movers, then each would have moved without a mover, independently of the others.

 

[lightgigantic]

Pete

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
god introduces the concept of duality - namely that he is unique because he is the foundation of the material world (as opposed to his foundation being in the material world)
hence there is no problem between 1 and 3
”
Of course there is a problem. The two statements:
"Everything that moves must have a moving mover"

"There must be something that moved without a mover"

not if god has recourse to something outside of matter as indicated above

Introducing a "material world" limitation is a red herring, adding needless complexity... either way, there must be at least one thing that moved without a mover (again, assuming the "no infinite chain" clause).

If one states that all matter moves due to some cause outside of itself, and if god has recourse to something that is not matter, there is no problem

Of course you are adopting the foundation of classical empiricism, namely that all and everything can be defined as matter

Whether it/they exist in the material world or not is a separate question... and possibly irrelevant, since it seems a matter of arbitrary definition whether or not something is considered to exist in the material world.

the foundation of classical empiricism is also arbitrary

as for defining god as existing within and without the material world, that is the standard definition

SB 1.3.36: The Lord, whose activities are always spotless, is the master of the six senses and is fully omnipotent with six opulences. He creates the manifested universes, maintains them and annihilates them without being in the least affected. He is within every living being and is always independent.

“
but just off the top of my head, if one advocates the possibility of there being several prime movers, they must be unified in some fashion, since the definition doesn't allow for one prime mover (A) to move another (B) and still enable (B) to be classified as a prime mover
”
If A moved B, then B wouldn't be a prime mover.
If there were several prime movers, then each would have moved without a mover, independently of the others.

and if one prime mover encountered another prime mover, what would happen?

 

[Pete]

LG,
If something moves without a mover (matter or not), then this statement:
"Everything that moves must have a moving mover" is clearly false.

Claiming that God is the only thing that can move without a mover is not supported by the argument.

If one states that all matter moves due to some cause outside of itself, and if god has recourse to something that is not matter, there is no problem

If the Universe is not composed solely of matter, there is no problem.

Do you see that the argument doesn't actually say anything about God unless you assume that God is the only prime mover?

and if one prime mover encountered another prime mover, what would happen?

That would depend on the properties of the prime movers, about which the argument is uninformative.
Also, the argument doesn't say that a prime mover can't be moved by another mover... it only says that a prime mover doesn't have to have a mover.

 

[Sarkus]

I've got nothing to post other than what is already said

And what you have said says nothing and answers nothing of the questions asked of you - but speaks volumes of you.

Your argument has been found wanting.
You deliberately avoid questions - as you seem to lack the decency to either provide answers or to admit that you don't have one.
Further you deliberately misquote people and make false claims of their statements.

Now - maybe I'm wrong.
You could go a long way to demonstrating that quite simply by answering the following question - that I have asked several times and that you have so far avoided answering:

Please define "motion" as presented in your argument.

 

[Nasor]

lightgigantic gravity will cause things that are not moving to begin moving. In fact, any force (electromagnetism, gravity, whatever) can cause something to move. Are you going to propose that gravity is an entity now?

 

[lightgigantic]

lightgigantic gravity will cause things that are not moving to begin moving. In fact, any force (electromagnetism, gravity, whatever) can cause something to move. Are you going to propose that gravity is an entity now?

no

but it is sufficient to suggest that these forces belong to some object

LG,
If something moves without a mover (matter or not), then this statement:
"Everything that moves must have a moving mover" is clearly false.

therefore the opener actually reads

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

Claiming that God is the only thing that can move without a mover is not supported by the argument.

if god is not inherently composed of matter - in the material reductionist sense, the problem doesn't arise

If the Universe is not composed solely of matter, there is no problem.

Do you see that the argument doesn't actually say anything about God unless you assume that God is the only prime mover?

and the problems of accepting that matter is the prime mover (ie there is an infinite series of cause and effects) is more agreeable?

That would depend on the properties of the prime movers, about which the argument is uninformative.

logically it must be singular (unless one wants to accept that there is an infinite series of cause and effects - which would make working with physics more fruitless than watercolour painting on ice cubes in summer)

Also, the argument doesn't say that a prime mover can't be moved by another mover... it only says that a prime mover doesn't have to have a mover.

it does say that it is illogical to accept an infinite series of cause and effects in universal affairs

 

[Enmos]

Its infinitely more logical than to assume a God did it...

 

[lightgigantic]

Its infinitely more logical than to assume a God did it...

according to what body of infinite knowledge do you make such statements?

:crazy:

 

[Enmos]

according to what body of infinite knowledge do you make such statements?

:crazy:

I could ask you the same.
At least 'my' claim has its basis in science, yours is based on nothing.

 

[lightgigantic]

I could ask you the same.
At least 'my' claim has its basis in science, yours is based on nothing.

for statements like these

Its infinitely more logical than to assume a God did it...

it does not have a basis in science

it has a basis in nonsense