Unmoved mover

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(oops)
m (Counter-apologetics: lc on link)
Line 5: Line 5:
 
==Counter-apologetics==
 
==Counter-apologetics==
  
Many of the responses to the "[[Uncaused cause]]" argument also apply to this one:
+
Many of the responses to the "[[uncaused cause]]" argument also apply to this one:
 
# If ''nothing'' moves without a prior mover, then God must need a prior mover, as well. Otherwise God is nothing, which contradicts the conclusion. Thus, either the premise is untrue, in which case the argument is [[unsound]], or the conclusion doesn't follow, in which case the argument is [[invalid]]. In fact, as stated, the argument is clearly [[self-contradictory]].
 
# If ''nothing'' moves without a prior mover, then God must need a prior mover, as well. Otherwise God is nothing, which contradicts the conclusion. Thus, either the premise is untrue, in which case the argument is [[unsound]], or the conclusion doesn't follow, in which case the argument is [[invalid]]. In fact, as stated, the argument is clearly [[self-contradictory]].
 
# [[Who created God?]]
 
# [[Who created God?]]

Revision as of 18:28, 30 October 2007

As formulated by Thomas Aquinas, the unmoved mover argument is stated as follows:

"Nothing moves without a prior mover. This leads us to a regress, from which the only escape is God. Something had to make the first move, and that something we call God."

Counter-apologetics

Many of the responses to the "uncaused cause" argument also apply to this one:

  1. If nothing moves without a prior mover, then God must need a prior mover, as well. Otherwise God is nothing, which contradicts the conclusion. Thus, either the premise is untrue, in which case the argument is unsound, or the conclusion doesn't follow, in which case the argument is invalid. In fact, as stated, the argument is clearly self-contradictory.
  2. Who created God?
  3. The word "God" carries a lot of undesirable cultural baggage, denoting an intelligent being. If the ultimate cause of our universe turns out to be, say, a random quantum fluctuation, then that would be "God" by Aquinas's definition, but to call this phenomenon "God" would be very misleading.
  4. Pairs of virtual particles are created (and annihilated) all of the time, out of literally nothing. These particles affect each other's motion, thus disproving Aquinas's premise.
  5. More exotically, if time were circular (i.e., if time repeated every so often, so that the year 1 were also the year ten trillion and one), then every motion could have a prior cause without infinite regress. This does not seem to be the case, though.
  6. Even if there is an infinite regress of causes, so what? The human mind is uncomfortable with the concept of infinity, but reality has no obligation to make us comfortable.
Personal tools
Namespaces
Variants
Actions
wiki navigation
IronChariots.Org
Toolbox