Atheism does not work...

[Voyager]

@Stratocaster

I think you misunderstand the definition of unmoved mover. There was no time. There was no physical influence (no prior movement). By definition. Intelligence or intention–while hardly conclusively evident–are absolutely consistent with the unmoved mover, and the definition of such offers no concerns.

Why is intelligence evident? The early universe, as far as we can tell, had random lumps. Wouldn’t an intelligent unmoved mover create more structure? Why does intelligence fit the evidence more than some supernatural animal that shat the universe into existence?

[lowbrass]

@Stratocaster

Yes, indeed you did. You seem to have missed the difference in verb tense in your rush to score a point. “Had no awareness” <> “has no awareness.” In the context I was answering the original question, this is not picking nits, either.

Huh???

The original question is present tense:

is aware of anything? No.

When I asked you to clarify, I used present tense:
[quoe]
So this “unmoved mover” is capable of forming intentions, but has no awareness?
How does that work?

[/quote]

Only after this did you switch tenses:

Sorry, I didn’t say this entity had no awareness.

Pardon my french, but what the fuck are you talking about? Are you trying to play games here?

[lowbrass]

Sorry - coding fixed:

@Stratocaster

Yes, indeed you did. You seem to have missed the difference in verb tense in your rush to score a point. “Had no awareness” <> “has no awareness.” In the context I was answering the original question, this is not picking nits, either.

Huh???

The original question is present tense:

is aware of anything? No.

When I asked you to clarify, I used present tense:

So this “unmoved mover” is capable of forming intentions, but has no awareness?
How does that work?

Only after this did you switch tenses:

Sorry, I didn’t say this entity had no awareness.

Pardon my french, but what the fuck are you talking about? Are you trying to play games here?

P.S. - if you have to resort to word games, you must not have much of a point to make in the first place.

[lowbrass]

@Stratocaster

1. Everything in the universe, as we understand it, must have a cause.

2. Infinite regress is absurd so there must be a first cause which is uncaused.

3. Therefore there is an unmoved mover with properties outside of our understanding that completes this logical construct.

The obvious flaw in this line of reasoning is that you say everything in the universe must have a cause, then apply this premise to the universe as a whole.

(2) is incorrect in that you have not demonstrated that the universe, as a whole, must have a cause.

Every chair in my house is blue; therefore my house is blue. <- doesn’t follow.

[Stratocaster]

@lowbrass

Pardon my french, but what the fuck are you talking about? Are you trying to play games here?

Calm down, okay? All I meant was that it’s possible the unmoved mover had been capable of forming intentions but is not currently aware. Take a deep breath, I’m not trying to play “gotcha” here. If that still seems like some mysterious word game, let me know.

[Stratocaster]

@sturmhauke

If you can’t understand what the hell Aquinas was talking about in those portions I quoted, you can’t very well use it to support your argument. If you can understand, why don’t you try to explain it better than he did? You’re the one who brought up Aquinas in the first place, after all.

For it is not possible for the same thing to be at once actual and potential inasmuch as it is the same, but only inasmuch as it is diverse, for what is actually hot cannot at the same time be potentially hot, but is at the same time potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that, in one and the same way, something could be moving and moved, or that something move itself. Therefore every thing that moves, must be moved from another.

…

Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e., that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is moved is moved by another.

Sorry, thought you could be a bit more specific in your objections. With regard to the same physical aspect (for lack of a better word), an entity cannot be potentially X and actually X at once. For that very same reason, an entity cannot be unmoved (with regard to that specific aspect)–which would make it a potentiality for that aspect–and simultaneously a creator of movement for that aspect (which is a property that only an actuality can possess). I’m really just re-stating what he holds as axiomatic, so I’m not sure this does the trick for you. From what I’ve read, those who don’t like the proof typically don’t find fault with this particular assertion; rather, it’s with the conclusion of these “givens.”

[Stratocaster]

@Voyager

Why is intelligence evident? The early universe, as far as we can tell, had random lumps. Wouldn’t an intelligent unmoved mover create more structure? Why does intelligence fit the evidence more than some supernatural animal that shat the universe into existence?

I’m not arguing that the unmoved mover had some sort of intelligent design for the universe, only that in the absence of some physical influence, something had to trigger the first movement. If it wasn’t some external influence, what was it? The suggestion–again hardly conclusively evident–is that it was the entity’s intention, its decision.

[Stratocaster]

@lowbrass

The obvious flaw in this line of reasoning is that you say everything in the universe must have a cause, then apply this premise to the universe as a whole.

I think it does.

(2) is incorrect in that you have not demonstrated that the universe, as a whole, must have a cause.

The assertion is that our understanding shows that everything does indeed have a cause. #2 is axiomatically false (or it seems so to some of us, anyway). Stated differently, everything exists as an act of creation of some sort–everything–which means that everything has a “start.” If everything has a start, this chain of movement must also have had a start. But what could have started it, if everything must have a start? It must be an entity of a different nature.

Every chair in my house is blue; therefore my house is blue. <- doesn’t follow.

Don’t know where you see this fallacy. The analogy would be if our understanding of physical law leads us to conclude that all known chairs in your house are blue. “What if there’s some different physical property, one that would lead to a red chair?” one might ask. The response is, well, we aren’t aware of such a property, and we don’t see any red chairs in your house. We must therefore conclude that all chairs must be blue, or take it on faith that there may someday be a red chair, produced by some physical effect that we aren’t currently aware of. How’s that for torturing an analogy?

[Anduril]

@Stratocaster

Well, that’s demonstrably false. We do understand something of the causality of the universe (which is not the same as saying we are certain we know everything).Yes, one could take it on faith that the physical universe can have a “causeless” start in the absence of an unmoved mover.I can’t assign a probability to it, but given current understanding, I’d side with a supernatural being–i.e., one with properties outside of the “natural” that would permit it to exist as an unmoved mover.

It’s true in the sense that we do not know squat about the causality of the existence of the universe. We do not know anything about the causality of the existence of anything. Causality, as we know it in the physical universe involves the rearrangement of particles or processes - not the creation of particles out of nothing. The few examples that we have of particles seemingly coming from nothing is still a mystery to us. So NO. We don’t know anything about the cause of the existence of anything. All we know is that a rearrangement of particles must have a cause. We don’t even know if the existence of those particles must have a cause, much less know if the existence of the entire universe necessitates a cause.

Again…the question…which is more likely? the universe as an unmoved mover, or a supernatural hypothetical entity you created in your mind as the unmoved mover? Your faith and fidelity to this supernatural entity is admirable, but really…

[Stratocaster]

@Anduril

It’s true in the sense that we do not know squat about the causality of the existence of the universe. We do not know anything about the causality of the existence of anything. Causality, as we know it in the physical universe involves the rearrangement of particles or processes - not the creation of particles out of nothing. The few examples that we have of particles seemingly coming from nothing is still a mystery to us. So NO. We don’t know anything about the cause of the existence of anything.

We certainly know something of cause and effect, correct? That’s the sense movement is used in the proof.

Again…the question…which is more likely? the universe as an unmoved mover, or a supernatural hypothetical entity you created in your mind as the unmoved mover? Your faith and fidelity to this supernatural entity is admirable, but really…

It’s nice to be a source of admiration. Really, no skin off my nose–plenty of people don’t buy the cosmological argument. I do. So, I’ll add again that our understanding of causality–cause and effect, if you’d prefer–leads me to conclude that there is an entity who exists or existed outside this frame of reference, an entity that started the whole ball rolling, so to speak.

[Anduril]

@Stratocaster

We certainly know something of cause and effect, correct?

Yes, we do. But earlier, you were saying that we would be taking it on faith that the universe is causeless and that conceiving of a causeless universe will not be consistent with the physical laws of the universe (or something to this effect). It seems right now that you are begining to understand that this is false and that it DOES take more of a leap to conceive of a supernatural entity as unmoved mover. That’s good.

[David_Simmons]

@Stratocaster

We certainly know something of cause and effect, correct?

We know something about cause and effect in matters within our universe that deal with macroscopit objects. We are not at all sure about cause and effect on the quantum object scale and we know absolutely nothing about cause and effect when it comes to universe building.

[the_PC_apeman]

@Stratocaster

I think you misunderstand the definition of unmoved mover. There was no time. There was no physical influence (no prior movement). By definition. Intelligence or intention–while hardly conclusively evident–are absolutely consistent with the unmoved mover, and the definition of such offers no concerns.

I see my problem now. You are being very literal with movement. The unmoved mover wasn’t “moved” by its alleged intelligence. Its intelligence wasn’t “moved” by its alleged awareness of other movers. That’s all very convenient if you wish to hold onto the idea of an intelligent creator. But it also does nothing to support your vision of the initial state. It just assumes it. My apologies to you for my distraction.

[Ale]

@David Simmons

We know something about cause and effect in matters within our universe that deal with macroscopit objects. We are not at all sure about cause and effect on the quantum object scale and we know absolutely nothing about cause and effect when it comes to universe building.

Yep, all those goofy quantum vacuum fluctuations are a spit on the face of causality. We are embeded on a sea of particles and forces that randomly oscillate in and out of existence; thus the universe, on it´s deepest foundation defies the possibility of absolute knowledge and straight, trackable causation.

Some things happen just because.

[lowbrass]

@Stratocaster

Calm down, okay? All I meant was that it’s possible the unmoved mover had been capable of forming intentions but is not currently aware. Take a deep breath, I’m not trying to play “gotcha” here. If that still seems like some mysterious word game, let me know.

What makes you think I’m not calm? That may have been what you meant (although I’m not sure you’re not just trying to revise history), but it most certainly isn’t what you said. You could have avoided this whole argument by just explaining that in the first place, rather than copping an attitude and saying:

“You seem to have missed the difference in verb tense in your rush to score a point.”

I didn’t screw up the tenses, YOU did. But in your zeal to “zing” me, you overlooked that. Then when I pointed that out to you, you switched to an ad hominem argument about my relative state of calmness, which is irrelevant.

[David_Simmons]

@Ale

Yep, all those goofy quantum vacuum fluctuations are a spit on the face of causality. We are embeded on a sea of particles and forces that randomly oscillate in and out of existence; thus the universe, on it´s deepest foundation defies the possibility of absolute knowledge and straight, trackable causation.

Some things happen just because.

We have lost a lot of ground since Aquinas. He knew all there was to know about cause and effect. We don’t.

[sturmhauke]

@Stratocaster

With regard to the same physical aspect (for lack of a better word), an entity cannot be potentially X and actually X at once. For that very same reason, an entity cannot be unmoved (with regard to that specific aspect)–which would make it a potentiality for that aspect–and simultaneously a creator of movement for that aspect (which is a property that only an actuality can possess). I’m really just re-stating what he holds as axiomatic, so I’m not sure this does the trick for you. From what I’ve read, those who don’t like the proof typically don’t find fault with this particular assertion; rather, it’s with the conclusion of these “givens.”

See that’s just it, I’m finding fault with the axioms. Why can’t something be potentially X and actually X at once? For example, what does it mean to be potentially hot or actually hot? A comfortable temperature for me would be hot for a penguin. What’s hot for me may be perfectly acceptable to a microbe living in a hot spring.

And what about this: “…for what is actually hot cannot at the same time be potentially hot, but is at the same time potentially cold.” What does that mean? Something that is hot cannot also be cold? The concepts of “hot” and “cold” depend on your point of view. Does it mean that something that is now hot cannot become cold? That’s plainly false.

[Voyager]

@Stratocaster

I’m not arguing that the unmoved mover had some sort of intelligent design for the universe, only that in the absence of some physical influence, something had to trigger the first movement. If it wasn’t some external influence, what was it? The suggestion–again hardly conclusively evident–is that it was the entity’s intention, its decision.

Even absent intelligent design, we don’t even need intelligence. A dog intends to dig up his bone. A non-intelligent creator could intend to make the universe, or make it accidentally.

If we saw early design, we could say something about a designer. Since we don’t even if you buy the need for an external influence (which I don’t) you can’t say much about that influence.

[lowbrass]

Dogs are intelligent.

[Stratocaster]

@Anduril

Yes, we do. But earlier, you were saying that we would be taking it on faith that the universe is causeless and that conceiving of a causeless universe will not be consistent with the physical laws of the universe (or something to this effect).

Yes, I said that, but in the sense of the proof–cause and effect, the infinite regress and all that.

It seems right now that you are begining to understand that this is false and that it DOES take more of a leap to conceive of a supernatural entity as unmoved mover. That’s good.

I honestly don’t know how you’re concluding this. I think I explicitly stated the opposite.