>the universe must have a cause
>the unmoved mover does not
In order to be a mover one inherently moves.
dude, bro, that's why it's called the unmoved mover and not the moved mover, my man
>>328963
The unmoved mover is self-caused.
>universe by definition includes all that is
>this means the unmoved mover
>unmoved mover must have cuase
The laws of nature state that what has a beginning must have a cause
What made these laws? The Mover. If He existed before these laws then common sense dictates that He must transcend them.
>>328976
the universe is self-caused
The universe must have a cause, because an unmoved mover would have certain properties. If the universe itself was the Unmoved Mover, it would have properties we know it doesn't have.
>cause and effect
May as well worship reddit as a god ngl
>>328980
definite movement please.
explain properties please.
>>328991
*define
>the universe is all that exists
>the universe can't cause itself to exist
>the first cause is necessarily outside the universe
>the first cause does not lie within all that exists
>the first cause doesn't exist
Wham bam thank you, ma'am
>>328978
a thing can cause itself when it operates outside of time. The universe includes all time and therefore operates outside of it.
>>328991
You understand 'movement' in the unmoved move is a metaphor right? If we were to employ strict terminology, we'd be talking about something more like "Causal relations", and I'll admit, defining causality is a bit above what I can explain.
When you say "explain properties please", do you want me to explain what properties an unmoved mover entails, or explain what properties, themselves are?
>>328996
I object to premise 3
>the first cause is necessarily outside the universe
could we get a definition of first cause?
>>328963
yeah, but has the unmoved mover, if something like this exists, have to be specified or is it a mere force we just don't understand yet? If it doens't exist, and nothing has a "cause", isn't spontanity the actual "unmoved moving cause" ?
>>329005
I don't understand? How does the universe including all time lead to the notion that it therefore operates outside of it?
>unmoved mover
why not call it an uncaused causer so everyone can see how bullshit the terminology really is
>>329020
Because if something is effected by time, that means it's not the original mover:
Because Time, at the very least, is a prior mover.
>>329013
I would have thought movement is more like change. I understand what you mean a casual relations as well.
concerning properties, the later. The definition of a property is clear enough.
>>329022
dubs of truth
>something had to exist before the creation of time
>>329025
Who said the mover is effected by time? or that time is a mover? I think it'd make more sense that the Mover is entirely timeless and created time.
>>329032
>Conceding that time is a creation
>denying that it was created
wot
>>329028
Well, the first is that an unmoved mover must be extratemporal, because as I explained here:
>>329025
If something is effected by the flow of time, the flow of time is at least a prior causal force.
Second, an unmoved mover by definition would require an independent will. Unconscious matter can cause things only by being acted on via another force or property.
Something existing outside of time, without influence by any other factor, would only be able to produce a causal relation through a process inherent to itself.
>the first cause is acausal in nature and completely incomprehensible
>lol it's (insert my choice of god here)
thanks for conveying absolutely 0 meaningful information
>>329037
Poor wording, I just meant before space-time existed.
>implying the laws that govern reality don't change over time
>>328980
>it would have properties we know it doesn't have.
Like what? We don't know every detail of quantam mechanics or physics. How do you know that somewhere out in the expanses of space lies the observable, empirical evidence for universes forming on their own, waiting to be discovered?
No mainline physicist would stake that claim you just made.
>>329034
That's exactly right. Now, if the mover exists outside of time, it must also exist outside of space.
Firstly, because modern science has proven that space and time are in fact the same thing, and secondly, because it's impossible to express spacial relations without reference to temporal relations.
>>329049
So you believe it came from "nothing"? What type of "nothing" can something come from? I don't think anyone has observed a state of "nothing" that can somehow create "something". Maybe you could say "something we don't understand yet existed before space-time" but I don't think its logical to say it was "nothing".
>>329013
Careful there, "first mover" and "first cause" are DRASTICALLY different concepts.
It's true that "mover" isn't just strictly movement, but all other properties of the natural world. However, the idea is, it is restricted to those physical properties. It is an argument by physics.
"First cause", however, depends on the relation of causality, which doesn't exist in nature. It is an argument by metaphysics.
>>329056
>Like what? We don't know every detail of quantam mechanics or physics.
Like existence outside of spacial relations.
>How do you know that somewhere out in the expanses of space
Because again, it's outside of space. You can't find it anywhere within space.
> that somewhere out in the expanses of space lies the observable, empirical evidence for universes forming on their own, waiting to be discovered?
Because that would still be a 'moved mover'. If we discovered our own universe was creating further sub-universes, that would still be a causal linkage
??? -> Our Universe -> New Universes.
If we discovered such a thing, it would be plausible to assume our universe is also caused by another universe, which points back again to something needing to create our universe.
You don't even need to address anything in the arguement. Augestine bases his metaphysics on incorrect physics.
1. Everything is ALWAYS moving and it is all self-caused. The universe is vibrating energy waves. Heraclitus's metaphysics are the correct one.
2. Motion is energy. Energy is matter. Motion is therefor Matter they are not separate things.
3. Motion does not work how Aquinas describes it. Motion works relatively as Einstein pointed out
Not only is Aquinas demonstrable wrong but every assumption he makes about matter, time, space, and motion is wrong.
>>329043
I'll concede the 1st property
I deny the second because will is itself a cause. The unmoved mover would be moved by it's will if it had one
I will concede the universe must have a cause, but why not cause itself? If we assume that time is essentially "circular" in nature it requires fewer entities than if you need a universe and it's movers. Therefore if both are feasible than my stance is more logical via Occam's razor (because no additional entity is necessary).
>>329079
>the relation of causality, which doesn't exist in nature
clarify and elaborate please
>>329079
"First mover" was always an argument via metaphysics. Thomas Aquinas existed in an era before modern philosophical terminology.
Trying to fit his first mover argument into the modern definition of motion (a change in position of an object with respect to time) would be a categorical error like treating Galvin as if he described electricity as the modern use of fluid, or reading Paracelsus as if he means Atomic Element 80 when he says 'mercury.'
>>329083
>I deny the second because will is itself a cause. The unmoved mover would be moved by it's will if it had one
This is to say that the will is a separate property of something that possessed it, yes?
>>329103
That depends. Would you qualify the motion of my hand on the keyboard right now as a separate property of my hand or not? The answer you give for the motion of my hand is the same answer I would give for will.
>>329091
Yes, that might be too strong of a statement, instead I should just say that causality doesn't exist in physics.
It's not something you can measure, or even give a mathematical definition of (the 'causation' in formal logic applies only to necessary statements and has nothing to do with what we mean by it when talking about events in the world)
Also of course there is such a thing people call "causality" in physics, but it's just a relativist restriction on chain of events, it doesn't define what cause and effects are.
To expand further: causes and consequences only appear when you introduce logic and hypotheticals, so you can talk about how things "would" be if some events "were" different.
But the natural world has none of those hypothetical events, all we can observe is physical quantities being linked to other physical quantities.
>>329100
I'd think the modern arguments by entropy are essentially the natural prolongation of arguments by first mover.
>>329111
I don't believe will works that way, and so the comparison is not helpful to either of us.
Or to put it another, I am perhaps using a slightly idiosyncratic definition of will here, since our own wills may be caused by the motion of our brains.
But this thing's 'will' stands in contradiction to motion. No law or inherent nature can force this thing to create motion (because then we have a higher level of causality), and so it must have the capacity to not move the world, but it does anyway.
>>329100
>It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion.
>to our senses
He's clearly making an argument about something empirical, therefore physics.
>Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it.
Is all physics. You'll have to convince me he's talking about something metaphysical here.
>>329113
causes and effects are rigorously defined in physics what are you on about
the definitions become more intricate depending on which system they being used to describe but saying that they don't exist is nonsense
>>329100
Metaphysics, like real physics are either wrong or right, in theory if you are smart enough you can make the right metaphysics before the physics comes along.
For instance Heraclitus is from the Year 2400 BCE and made metaphysics that are relevant to quantam physics.
Spinoza is 1600s only a few hundred years after Aquinas and his metaphysics are compatible with our modern view.
The simple fact is Aquinas was an idiot, his idea is just a rehash of something Aristotle had. I can't actually think of any contribution to philosophy Aquinas actually made.
>>329150
>causes and effects are rigorously defined in physics
Oh wow shit I must have missed that part on my physics textbook, can you remind me what the definition is?
>the definitions become more intricate depending on which system they being used to describe
What? If there's a definition it's not gonna change with each system, only the characterization will.
I think what you mean to say is physical theories often make use of the concepts of cause and effect, which is true. However they don't define them.
Also you're gonna have to tell me how to build a causation-meter, because boy is this gonna be useful.
>>329141
I see 2 possibilities here
1. the unmoved mover is will and nothing besides will. I fail to see how will can exist without a subject and an object.
2. will is separate from at least some aspects of the unmoved mover, therefore moves the other aspects of it, therefore the unmoved mover is moved by it's will.
>>329148
>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.
'Actuality' and 'Potentiality' are by definition non-empirical concepts.
But more importantly, even if he made no reference to metaphysics in this argument in particular, it is clear from the body of Thomas's work that he understood the principal at work to be metaphysical, because it's from this that he derives all his knowledge from God.
>>329195
>'Actuality' and 'Potentiality' are by definition non-empirical concepts.
No way, the way he uses it with wood as an example is literally the physical, empirical concept of internal energy, he just didn't have a word for it.
>it's from this that he derives all his knowledge from God.
No he derives it from five ways and it's just one. He also has an argument by first cause, and there is no doubt that for him those are two distinct arguments.
>>329181
>1. the unmoved mover is will and nothing besides will. I fail to see how will can exist without a subject and an object.
This is closest to the correct statement. The unmoved mover is will, but it is much besides that. 'The unmoved mover is Actuality' might be closer.
But our position is definitely narrowing, and coming closer together.
Can we agree on the key point however, that in order to be an unmoved mover, it must have the potentiality to not move?
> Something caused the start of time to exist?
How is this even possibly? You can't have causation without time.
>>329211
Why not?
>>329211
>You can't have causation without time.
why not
>>329177
i understand your point in that causality is an assumption and an interpretation but idk if i would go so far and say it doesn't exist
>>329218
Wouldn't you? To even talk about causation you have to do things like imagine the world "as it would be if event X was different". Of course, to be empirical, you can do several experiments and pretend that the conditions in those experiments are close enough that it's 'as if' you had rewinded time and seen how differently things go when you change one event. But all of that requires abstraction on our part, all those possible worlds simply do not exist.
>>329207
actualy, my position remains that the universe is self caused, since that is simpler than a separate entity. See: >>329083
and the guy who talks about potentialities is different from me. I don't see that such things exist really. Either wood is hot or it is not hot, further more with it will be hot or it will not be hot. And if a not hot piece of wood A does become hot, it fundamentally becomes a different object by virtue of it's hotness.
Since properties of a given object do not directly concern other objects and a potentiality must, and potentiality is thought to be a property, potentiality do not exist.
>>329242
you've given me a lot to think about and made me realize i didn't understand the concepts completely.
i'm going to assume you're a hard determinist then?
We currently cannot really say anything useful about before t=0. It is simply a back projection of availiable data. But if something that could be described as intelligent does exist back there, it would certainly be ridiculous that it cares about things like "brain #20764908697E65XyZ has pleasure neurotransmitters that signal when looking at stimuli interpreted as the same gender rather than the opposite."
>>329255
>But if something that could be described as intelligent does exist back there, it would certainly be ridiculous that it cares about things like "brain #20764908697E65XyZ has pleasure neurotransmitters that signal when looking at stimuli interpreted as the same gender rather than the opposite."
I don't think its us whos projecting here
>>329264
savage
>>329264
No, seriously. The unmoved mover argument is cute and all, but to try and tie the complete abstract of that to the definitive personality and fucked-up morality of the Judeo-Christian god is ridiculous. Yes yes, *tips fedora*, very original, but that doesn't actually argue against anything.
>>329246
>i'm going to assume you're a hard determinist then?
Oh, not necessarily. I suppose I like to imagine the world is determinist, but I don't think indeterminism with the other possible worlds being "real" (I suppose this is what you're referring to) would affect my position on causality.
For once because those other possible worlds would be entirely inaccessible to us, thus not really solving the issue of how to say physical things about causation. But more importantly because the set of chain of events we analyze under causality is larger than that of those affected by indeterminism worlds.
I'm not being clear so let's say it like that: suppose the many-world interpretation is true. It does permit some alternate realities to have some microscopic events to be different, and maybe eventually snowball, but it does not allow EVERY alternate reality to be real.
For example, I can easily make a causal physical statement like: "the reason my room is warm while the air outside is cold is the wall between them."
But there isn't a world in the many-worlds where I am in the same situation I am now, except without a wall. No amount of random fluctuation will cause the architect to build a house missing a wall, and me to come live in it and post on peruvian bongo boards. Yet, this is the hypothetical situation we consider when we say that the wall causes the temperature difference between here and outside.
>>329279
Nobody uses the unmoved mover argument as a case for Christianity. Only for the existence of God. Idk why you even bring this up
>>329279
I suppose the next argument is something like "it can't be physical since it's not in-universe, and the only non-physical things are thoughts, therefore the first cause is sentient", but that's a load of horseshit.
>>329243
>actualy, my position remains that the universe is self caused
If the universe was self-caused, was it necessarily self-caused.
>Either wood is hot or it is not hot, further more with it will be hot or it will not be hot
Okay. But will 4 be hot, or not hot?
>>329243
I don't see why you guys have problems with "potentiality", the example Aquinas gives with the wood is literally chemical energy. It's empirical, it's measurable, it's defined.
>>328963
Particles decay spontaneously without external influence
We thus have an example of an "unmoved mover", we have had this example for nearly a century, philosophy pls.
knife goes in, guts come out
>>329300
>Only for the existence of God
Would be more or less probably that "God" is some Lovecraftian horror that would melt our very minds if we saw it?
>>329381
Christian god already is an incomprehensible entity that would melt our very minds if we saw it. Do you even trinity?
>>329389
>Do you even trinity?
I don't think anyone even trinities.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQLfgaUoQCw
>>329527
Not him, but if we're gonna post Youtube videos...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bUy-H5MmeGU
>>329527
>a mystery which cannot be understood through human reason
Pretty lovecraftian.
1. The creation of the world is the most marvellous achievement imaginable.
2. The merit of an achievement is the product of (a) its intrinsic quality, and (b) the ability of its creator.
3. The greater the disability or handicap of the creator, the more impressive the achievement.
4. The most formidable handicap for a creator would be non-existence.
5. Therefore, if we suppose that the universe is the product of an existent creator, we can conceive a greater being—namely, one who created everything while not existing.
6. An existing God, therefore, would not be a being than which a greater cannot be conceived, because an even more formidable and incredible creator would be a God which did not exist.
7. (Hence) God does not exist.
>>329554
>1. The creation of the world is the most marvellous achievement imaginable.
'Marvellous' isn't an objective property. Also, just because you can't imagine something, that doesn't make it false
>>329549
or christian
>>328996
The first cause is a misnomer.
>Cause must have effect
>Effect must have a cause
>The first cause and last cause are outside this system by definition
>Cause and Effect don't encompass these two causes by definition
>no word exists
>mfw you can't define that which doesn't exist currently
>>328973
/thread
>>329052
>natural LAWS
>changing
>>330649
Laws are enforced by some sort of authority, the authority in physics being the nature of the universe if you don't like the idea of a god.
If the authority changes, the law changes.
I see no reason why the fundamental nature and attributes of the universe couldn't change
>>328963
>existance happened out of non existance just because and without causation
>hahahaha, checkmate you deistfags!!!! I haz best and most rational argument!!! Suck it!! Hahahahehehaheohehuehuehueheuhdthgfhreeuehuehshahohueheuheu
>>334407
But existence didn't happen out of non existence.
There was energy. In the big bang energy was converted into matter.
There's the theory that the universe is just a cycle of energy exploding into matter then eventually collapsing on itself to convert back into energy then doing it all over again.
Maybe it's as >>328979 said and the universe is self-caused
Why does "the first cause" have to be an intelligent being? Intelligence is just a function of a form, like how toasting bread is the function of the form of a toaster. Claiming that intelligence transcends the universe is like claiming the act of toasting bread transcends the universe. Both functions require a physical form.
>>334428
Energy is existance. It exists.
The existing singularity that caused the Big Bang, err, existed.
What caused that singalurity? Either a previous existing phenomenon through causality or something that trascends existance itself.
>>328976
thats circular logic and a completely unnaceptable definition of god.
Therefore any discussion of god in such terms is completely meaningless.
Please try again
>>334467
What if the Big Bang was a singular event in a much more expansive universe that is infinitely complexity in both directions of scale?
>>328996
>the universe can't cause itself to exist
thats a nice assumption you have there anon
>>329046
this guy gets it
>>334481
Per definition all existance needs a beggining lad. You can climb up the ladder of multiple universes as much as you want, ultimately there has to be one primordial beggining of existance.
>>334506
>Per definition all existance needs a beggining lad.
A beginning requires the dimension of time. The dimension of time that we occupy is specific to our universe, the universe created at the Big Bang. A grander universe in which the Big Bang occupies wouldn't be subject to a dimension contained only within our universe. It may have many other dimensions, but none of them our dimension of time.
>>328963
I don't understand why this doesn't make sense. It may not be true in the end but it's perfectly understandable and within reason to conclude since the only other option is infinite regress, which is only tenable if you allow for an uncaused cause to start it in the first place.
>>334549
Occam's Razor, mainly. It's simpler to propose that the universe does not require a cause, than that there was an 'unmoved mover' that does not require a cause. One entity instead of two.
>>334428
What is energy? It isn't corporeal. It's really just potentiality.
>>334648
Not only that but the universe doesn't have a bunch of divine powers tacked onto it that we have to assume without evidence
>>334549
1.The universe is expanding from all points.
2.Processes have a beginning.
3.Therefore the universe at one time was incredibly minuscule.
1.We live in a universe expanding from a formerly quantum size.
2.If time and space are connected, when space comes into being, so does time begin.
3.If all possible states of quantum entities do exist until observed, the universe in a quantum state would both exist and not exist
4.Conscious beings observe that they exist within an expanding universe.
5.Therefore time has a finite beginning.
>>335022
*universe has a finite beginning
>>335022
>Therefore the universe at one time was incredibly minuscule.
Nope, universe has been and always will be infinite. The expansion is just the distance between the things in it
>>335051
>universe has been and always will be infinite
[citation needed]
http://www.universetoday.com/119553/is-the-universe-finite-or-infinite/
http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/Is_the_Universe_finite_or_infinite_An_interview_with_Joseph_Silk
Could be either.
According to this outdated STEM shit I'm not even gonna fucking try to read, it's finite:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4250-tantalising-evidence-hints-universe-is-finite/
>>329070
by definition nothing can exist before time
I've never understood this argument for god. Of course the universe has a cause, so does atomic decay. There's no basis to assume that the cause of either of these is a willing entity.
>>329025
Even if you consider existence independent of time, why is there spacetime at all instead of nothing.
>>330618
The first cause causes the last effect.
whoa
hey guys
welcome to eb games
