I’d grant this, and I believe so would Tom. Stated more comprehensively, I believe the logic that leads us to conclude there is/was an unmoved mover dictates that this entity must exist unconstrained by the universal restrictions that would otherwise lead us to assume a logical absurdity like the infinite regress. Or at least that’s how I understand it.
Absolutely! Philosophers tend to be cuddly types who welcome such familiarity. We all know that.
Didn’t Hawkings suggest that we cannot know what existed prior to the Big Bang, prior to time? That there was effectively a definitional “firewall” of sorts that would make this an impossibility? Or am I misremembering?
Not following this. The unmoved mover would be an uncreated, eternal entity. I can’t fit that into what you’re asserting, but I may be misunderstanding.
It is the free will that is an unmoved mover. Those who believe we have free will (like Aquinas) must accept that we have an unmoved mover within us or that we are wholly deterministic.
Now how is this more likely than an unmoved universe that could very well be unconstrained by this supposed restriction on infinite regression? I mean here we are looking at the impossibility of infinite regress to point to an unmoved mover. Some atheists posit the possibility that the universe itself is the unmoved mover. Why is the creation of an extraneous entity more likely than that? At the very least, we actually have some evidence that the universe exists. Your unmoved mover is an unnecessary multiplication of entities.
You’re trying to deny the possibility that the universe is unconstrained by this restriction on universal regression and here you are postulating an entity that does exactly that. With no evidence.
Also, can anyone explain why it’s not logically absurd to think of infinite progress and yet infinite regress is thought of as logically absurd? Wouldn’t acceptance of the former necessitate acceptance of the latter?
Well I was able to voice my pet peeve without being rude and sarcastic. You might try it sometime.
I reiterated a point that someone else made. YOU continually reiterate points that YOU YOURSELF have already made. Seems to me the latter is the worse transgression. Get over yourself.
This is actually a pretty polite discussion (particularly in the context of similar disputes on the same topic previously), but we always encourage civility.
Unfortunately, it is the nature of the beast (discussion without formal rules) to allow some personality–including asperity–to slip into the exchange.
The rules are: one may attack the logic or facts of another poster; one may not hurl personal insults at another poster. This is not a high school debate or Rhetoric 501 and we tolerate a fair amount of expression of personality, here.
Obviously, we would have fewer fights if we enforced a rigid system of formal debate. We would also have far fewer interesting discussions as few people have the training or patience to follow such rules.
I encourage everyone to exhibit civility and patience in their posts. I also encourage everyone to be a bit tolerant of those whose skills at formal debate (or whose impetuous personalities) prompt them to express themselves in a less civil manner.
Why do we have to assume anything? Why do we have to take anything on faith? What’s wrong with the answer “I don’t know”? We know how causality works in the universe, but we don’t know how it works, or even if it exists at all, with respect to the universe as a whole.
Using “real” time, yes. Both the Big Bang and black holes are singularities. (Your “firewall.”) However, one of his postualtes was that, by using imaginary time, one could see that there are no singularities, simply points that look like it in real time. The begining of the universe (as seen through our eyes, using real time) is singular; however, instead of being some starting point on a time-line, it is a minima on a time curve in real and imaginary space.
I’m not gonna pretend I know what all of that means or what imaginary time looks like. (Where’s Jacob Burroughs?) The above is my interpretation of a small section of chapter 8 from A Brief History of Time by Steve. Hey, we got Tom and Bert, Hawking needs a nick, too!
Just a reinforcement of the point that proving an unmoved mover doesn’t prove God. The Word states that God is the direct creator of the universe. But the unmoved mover doesn’t have to be the direct creator of God, Aton, Vishnu, Thor, Zeus, or the universe. Any chain of causes of any finite length doesn’t violate the requirement that infinite regress is forbidden.
If you concede that Aquinas’ supposed proof of a first cause doesn’t prove the existence of God then why was it introduced into the discussion in the first place?
I think the suggestion is that we avoid jumping to conclusions while the investigation is ongoing.
Faith in an ultimate answer to the question of why the universe isn’t needed. The investigation into the matter will yield a lot of valuable subsidiary conclusions, if the past record is any indicator, and it’s possible that no ultimate answer will be found. If so, so be it.
Only because there’s nothing in what we know about the universe that suggests that it could “behave” thusly. So, there is an entity that must serve the role of unmoved mover, one unconstrained by universal restrictions. It is either some extraneous entity, or it is our universe, which would have to be subject to its own restrictions and simultaneously unconstrained. How would that work?
I asserted that it supported the existence of an eternal, uncreated entity that put the universe into motion. That at the very least is consistent with the notion of God. In fact, to state it more forcefully, it supports the existence of a God equivalent, however you choose to categorize this entity.
I think you misunderstand the concept of “unmoved mover.” Exercising free will does not render one an unmoved mover unless that active choice was preceded by, well, nothing.
Exactly. I am not saying that one ever becomes an unmoved mover. But if one claims to have free will, then something within must be an unmoved mover. Right? Otherwise everything that happens is predetermined and/or random.
Regardless of my free will example, what do you say about the possibility or even the likelihood of multiple unmoved movers? ISTM that one is no more likely than two or any other number.
Neither do we know that it could NOT “behave” thusly. The universe as a whole could be that “uncaused, uncreated entity”. There is no reason why this could not be the case. So we’re still left with an unmoved “universe” and your “unmoved” God - the “unmoved” God being an extraneous being entity.
