The proof destroys itself as Apos said.
-
Everything has a cause.
-
Infinite regress is absurd so there must be a first cause which is uncaused.
-
Therefore not everything has a cause.
Well, yeah, that too. I was focusing on a different problem.
[sub]Not that I missed the self-destroying aspect or anything. No sir. Ahem.[/sub]
No, we don’t. As far as the “causality” of the universe is concerned, we don’t know squat. So, we have no way of saying that it CAN’T be causeless or unmoved. Given that, which then is more likely, that the universe is the “unmoved mover” or that a supernatural entity is? Keep in mind that we have evidence of the universe’s existence.
By definition neither could intelligence or intention. Nothing is left. By definition, nothing triggered the unmoved mover.
Strong atheism’s position of “There is no god” cannot be logically proven. But I’m not seeing any theism arising from your description of an unmoved mover. At best, you seem to be relegating a least powerful god to the smallest possible gap.
Statistically, you can predict half life, but in my understanding you cannot predict when a particular atom will decay. Things are probabilistic at this level - God does play dice.
Aristotle’s argument seems to conflate the two. It assumes that the movement of things cannot happen without something setting them into motion, which must be either a prime mover or something in motion itself. This assumes that the starting state was that matter was not in motion, and thus had to be put into motion by the prime mover - that the “natural” state of matter is to be at rest. Since the starting state of matter has to involve motion, the argument fails. This doesn’t address the issue of what created matter, but I think it refutes the movement argument.
Oh, then which Stratocaster was it that wrote:
That wasn’t you? Did I misunderstand? Did you mean to say “yes”?
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.
Aquinas’s proof considers the mutually exclusive possibilities of an infinite regress or an unmoved mover. One either accepts his proof, choosing one or the other, or finds fault in the proof.
I don’t think that really represents the conclusion of the proof–or at least my conclusion. I would depict it as:
-
Everything in the universe, as we understand it, must have a cause.
-
Infinite regress is absurd so there must be a first cause which is uncaused.
-
Therefore there is an unmoved mover with properties outside of our understanding that completes this logical construct.
It’s interesting to consider what these properties would consist of, assuming #1 is true.
Aristotle is on his own, since I didn’t introduce his proof to the thread. 
Focusing on Tom A’s proof, I’m still not sure what your counter consists of. “I can’t make any sense of this” may well be true, but it’s not an argument. Is there a particular point of Aquinas’s that you’d show as a faulty? Can you show why?
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.
By definition? What definition?
The same one referred to here:
I think **Apos ** has it, the problem in the end is finding evidence on why we should plug an unmoved mover into the equation.
As for:
There is a big problem here, thinking of some pre-Columbian American creations one might as well deduce the unmoved mover ceased to be as a result of the universe appearing.
I call that the “Oh Shi…” theory based on the idea that that was the last “thought” he/she/it had.
Still assuming a mover, we may be colossally wrong in assuming we were expected. Or created, for what we see in early galaxies or closer to the Big Bang is, well, chaos.
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.
Because it’s logical (though not conclusive).
Alls I can say is it works okay for me.
And the alternative is also logical, in practical terms, both irrelevant to this universe.
It’s logical, if one assumes a physical property / circumstance that is not currently evident. Inferring an unmoved mover requires no assumption (of the type I reference here).
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.