I was reading Aristotles "Physics" and the argument is far stronger than any other argument I have seen. So if I were to summarise how I interpret the argument then it would go like this: It starts of with the fact that that every change has a cause. The world is constantly changing, one thing causing the next. We are subjects not objects. Our experiences constantly change yet we are still the same self, We know based on our own experiences of being conscious selves that we can act as "first causes" of things despite at our core not changing.
Conscious minds are the only thing we know for sure can be unmoved movers of things and first causes of things. Of course it is possible that there can be other things which are first causes and unmoved movers but there is only empirical evidence for one type of thing to be an unmoved mover and a first cause. A conscious mind.
Cosmological arguments are among the best arguments for theism, and they're definitely taken seriously by professional philosophers of all stripes; but they're not conclusive because they rely on controversial premises, such as principles of sufficient reason, hylomorphism etc. all which have been independently questioned.
So conscious being like ourselves are an example of a unmoved mover and first cause. And we know from Aquinas that an unmoved mover can't have been caused by something else. So God can't have created us. If we aren't unmoved movers in the full sense then again you have no example of an unmoved mover. But I'm pleased you've moved away from the obvious stupidity of everything has a cause besides God crap.
you didn't understand Aquinas
>you didn't understand Aquinas
Oh so an unmoved mover can be caused by something else? So what cause God?
God will never reveal that of course
what a moron
I know what caused the universe. It wasn't God but that's all I'm going to tell you.
i think it's the big potato bong
moronic
>So conscious being like ourselves are an example of a unmoved mover and first cause.
I suppose the existence of free will would contradict the mind being a part of the cause-effect chain, BUT aren't the acts of the mind fundamentally contingent on God? I could choose A or B, but if I were not created by God, I could choose neither, so God is still the ultimate contingency.
>BUT aren't the acts of the mind fundamentally contingent on God?
From the post you're responding to
>If we aren't unmoved movers in the full sense then again you have no example of an unmoved mover.
If you equivocate about us being unmoved movers your destroy OP's argument that relies on us being examples of unmoved movers.
>
>I was reading Aristotles "Physics" and the argument is far stronger than any other argument I have seen.
Interesting
modern physics reflects the unmoved mover. To be fair though, this argument has been around for aeons. Not to take away from Aristotle, but I believe it was Anaximander who posited the concept of the Unbounded, before Socrates. And someone likely did it before him
But neither here nor there. These are the best arguments for God there is, because they're the most logical, they merge the material with the world of pure energy, ideas and potential.
But tbh I find that the ultimate and most potent argument for God's existence is that its impossible for us to feel love without acknowledging our Creator.
God bless you
And you as well my brother. May he bless all the world so that it may heal.
>The fact that every change has a cause
>Our experience constantly chnages
>We are unmoved mover
A is B
C is A
C is D
.__.
Wrong
>Some things are moved
>Everything that is moving is moved by a mover
>there is an unmoved mover from whom all motion proceeds
>An infinite regress of movers is impossible
>That mover is what we call God (The Father)
>Everything that is moving is moved by a mover
>there is an unmoved mover from whom all motion proceeds
Blatant contradiction. If God is moving he needs a mover by your first assertion.
God is not moving
>God is not moving
So God can't be a mover. Unless an unmoving thing can move something.
God is a mover but he is moving you
I'm a mover but that doesn't mean that I am moving using your own logic. These ridiculous word games are useless to cover up the obvious contradiction your working from. You can't claim everything moving has a mover and then just exempt God. You can claim everything moving BESIDES GOD has a mover but that's clearly just special pleading and no one will take you seriously. Not that anyone will take you seriously if you just insist on contradicting yourself either.
>You can't claim everything moving has a mover and then just exempt God.
I can do it
everything has a mover but God is out space and time, thus he is not moving at all
all i can see is hatred moving inside your brain, who do you think is moving that?
>everything has a mover but God is out space and time, thus he is not moving at all
Which directly contradicts EVERYTHING having a mover. Again you can claim that everything BESIDES GOD has a mover but like I said above that's clearly special pleading and a pathetic argument.
You lost kakuzu
God's supposed existence still needs an explanation, even though it might not be one on a traditional time scale. "God just exists" is a cop-out.
You can claim that nothing can pop out of nowhere, but that's because you've never seen it happen, and likewise you've never seen god.
Also god can't be completely out of space and time, as he had to interact with it at one point.
To me it's like dark matter or dark energy. That is:
>our models work just fine for everything
>except in this one situation, where they don't work
>but if we say there is this "x" thing that we can't detect, when we plug it into the equations, everything works again
>therefore "x" exists
>even though "x" breaks every rule that every thing else follows.
In this case it is:
>everything has a cause
>except the whole thing breaks down into infinite regression
>but if we say there is this God thing, everything works again
>therefore God exists
>even though God breaks every rule that every thing else follows.
So just say the beginning of the universe has no cause. Same as saying God has no cause and by Occam's razor the preferable hypothesis. No need to make up some magical man in the sky just have the universe break your rule instead of your superfluous God.
That is indeed a common argument against the cosmological argument:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/#Obje1UnivJust
>Interpreting the contingent being in premise 1 as the universe, Bertrand Russell denies that the universe needs an explanation (premise 2); it just is. Russell, following Hume (1779), contends that since we derive the concept of cause from our observation of particular things, we cannot ask about the cause of something like the universe that we cannot experience. The universe needs no explanation; it is “just there, and that’s all” (Russell 1948 [1964]: 175). This view was reiterated by Hawking (1987: 651).
you are fricking degenerate and loser
>That mover is what we call God (The Father)
Do Christians actually not believe God is the first mover and instead that the first mover is one part of a triune God and that God moves parts of himself (son, holy spirit)? That's actually crazy. As a muslim I can't understand the justification for that.
in Christianity Jesus was the son of God, not God himself
Don't Christians believe in a Triune God? So the son, Jesus, is also himself God?
Apologies if I said something wrong I am not a Christian.
Depends, some Christians think that Jesus was just a prophet just like Mohammed or Moses
There are no parts. The Christian theologians and philosophers who use the first mover argument either argue that the trinity is a mystery or they use a bunch of tricks to say that God is ultimately simple but still has 2 relations in Him that allow for the Son and Holy Ghost. Aquinas argues for that in the Summa Theologiae:
https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1.htm
In the "The Blessed Trinity" section you have his arguments.
>argue that the trinity is a mystery
Ah the throw-your-hands-up-in-the-air-and-admit- your-position-makes-no-sense form of argument. Truly the most based of all rhetorical forms. I call it stabbing yourself with your own sword.
Work with me here anon. I read the link but I am a little bit confused, or am not exactly sure if my question was answered or not. So is the other anon incorrect in saying the father is the first mover, and instead the first mover is god who somehow has two relations in him?
Also is there a logical reason you believe in the trinity instead of oneness like the muslims and israelites do? Or is it just faith?
>So is the other anon incorrect in saying the father is the first mover, and instead the first mover is god who somehow has two relations in him?
Exactly, at least for Aquinas. The reason Christians believe the trinity is that scripture has evidence of it. It was nothing arrived at by logic. Neoplatonists had similar ideas, but the intellect and world soul are separate things from the One, while Christians want to keep it all as one thing somehow.
>completely misses the point of faith and religion for the gorillionth time
you people need to read more
i missed it on purpose
>people don't change
citation needed
How is this different from a machine with a timer inside which causes something to happen
a machine cannot procreate consciousness
How is that important to the argument?
you don't see it?
No, OP is talking about the causes of "things".
How complex beings are created is a different discussion, and that gets explained by evolution.
>endless strings of gay words
stfu, god doesn't exist
I'm just wasting my energy trying to understand things that don't make sense anyway. I end up understanding the logical fallacies, mostly having to do with absurd arbitrary premises, and I learn nothing. I'm so tired of the mental gymnastics of religious people.
its all mental gymnastics anon. atheism too. You can't definitively understand anything about God. You can accept this and then choose to either ignore it or to believe in it despite the lack of evidence. Anything else is wasted breath.
You will not understand anything unless God allows you so
Whether you like it or not, God exist
All great minds liked this truth, if you are capable mind you wouldn't argue with mere anons about it