Deep Sight:


"Be still. . . and know that i am GOD"
Ciao.

Thanks. I will get across to you through the e-contact.

Deep Sight:

^^^ Tudor, why are you spamming the thread with the same post appearing 3 times? I have noticed you seem to have a problem with your Reply button, many of your posts appear twice. . . deal with it!

Krayola/ Tudor - What's your take on the proof of motion?

viaro:


Of course, I see a few problems there already which I'd like to highlight later on. . . perhaps after your response to post #92.

I'm going to try to make this as brief as possible cause i no really get time.

Deep Sight:


The first and plainest is the method that proceeds from the point of view of motion. It is certain and in accord with experience, that things on earth undergo change. Now, everything that is moved is moved by something; nothing, indeed, is changed, except it is changed to something which it is in potentiality. Moreover, anything moves in accordance with something actually existing; change itself, is nothing else than to bring forth something from potentiality into actuality. Now, nothing can be brought from potentiality to actual existence except through something actually existing: thus heat in action, as fire, makes fire-wood, which is hot in potentiality, to be hot actually, and through this process, changes itself. The same thing cannot at the same time be actually and potentially the same thing, but only in regard to different things. What is actually hot cannot be at the same time potentially hot, but it is possible for it at the same time to be potentially cold. It is impossible, then, that anything should be both mover and the thing moved, in regard to the same thing and in the same way, or that it should move itself. Everything, therefore, is moved by something else. If, then, that by which it is moved, is also moved, this must be moved by something still different, and this, again, by something else. But this process cannot go on to infinity because there would not be any first mover, nor, because of this fact, anything else in motion, as the succeeding things would not move except because of what is moved by the first mover, just as a stick is not moved except through what is moved from the hand. Therefore it is necessary to go back to some first mover, which is itself moved by nothing---and this all men know as God.
[b]

Everything in the universe is in motion. Even things that appear stationary are in motion, either relative to something else, or at the sub-atomic level. I do not know of anything that is not in motion. If you do, please inform me. So i'm not convinced EVERYTHING that moves requires a first mover.

Also, that argument pretty much begs the question. It sets out to prove that there isn't an infinite regression of movers, but then says this is so because there must be a first mover, which is what a possible infinite regression eliminates as a necessity.

Also, I do not know of anything just beginning to exist. . .out of nothing. And I do not know of anything that exists that is not in motion. So, based on my experience, existence and motion are a given. If you can show me a case in which something has come to existence out of nothing. . .not a combination of parts, or a division, or growth or decline of some other existing thing, then you will have a case to make that the universe was created out of some kind of non-existence. Otherwise, I have reason to believe that the universe, by definition, exists and is in motion, and needs no cause, or mover, or God.

@deep sight. . . Most of my posts appear 2 to 3 times. . . .what an exageration. Anyway I seem to have a serious bug and I can't trace exactly what. Restoring my device would mean a complete overhaul of my security system and frankly i'm not ready to start all over again anytime soon. You guys should bear with me, it only happens once in a while.

Krayola:

I'm going to try to make this as brief as possible cause i no really get time.

Everything in the universe is in motion. Even things that appear stationary are in motion, either relative to something else, or at the sub-atomic level. I do not know of anything that is not in motion. If you do, please inform me. So i'm not convinced EVERYTHING that moves requires a first mover.

Also, that argument pretty much begs the question. It sets out to prove that there isn't an infinite regression of movers, but then says this is so because there must be a first mover, which is what a possible infinite regression eliminates as a necessity.

Also, I do not know of anything just beginning to exist. . .out of nothing. And I do not know of anything that exists that is not in motion. So, based on my experience, existence and motion are a given. If you can show me a case in which something has come to existence out of nothing. . .not a combination of parts, or a division, or growth or decline of some other existing thing, then you will have a case to make that the universe was created out of some kind of non-existence. Otherwise, I have reason to believe that the universe, by definition, exists and is in motion, and needs no cause, or mover, or God.

It presumes that the natural default state of the universe would be stationary if there were no prime mover. I find the idea of a stationary universe as mysterious as a moving universe. If everything were stationary then the question would be what is keeping everything stationary. There must be a God keeping things stationary.

@ pastor. How does it presume a stationary universe? If nothing is stationary, why should we believe the universe ever was stationary? You only need  first mover if it wasn't already moving.


Now, I concede that that does not eliminate the possibility of a first mover, it just shows that one isn't necessary, depending on how you want to look at it. Like I said no one can use logic to prove or disprove what they believe to be a transcendent God. IMO these logical "proofs" of God needn't be entertained by anyone not seeking an endless debate. Because once they have been entertained, you have to meet the theist on his own terms. . . trying to use logic to prove/disprove something that by definition transcends and defies logic. Futile, if u ask me. I was hoping deep-sight would point out the problems with my argument, just so i could show him that his arguments suffer the exact same limitations, and that is why we can not accept them as proof. He seems to not see that his arguments are ultimately hollow. . . they use words like "hence" and "therefore" to separate things that are in fact not logically dependent. But when u ask him "does this follow from this. . . .?" he says u have not fully grasped the "depth" or "subtleties" of the argument.

^^^ Krayola my man, how bodi. . . i need to point out that i accept that the core nature of the God-Concept cannot be logically proven or understood. What i believe can be logically proven is the existence of some entity responsible for creation, not necessarily the nature of that entity.

@ deepsight. I dey, my broda. how u dey?

It is not the entity whose existence the arguments seek to prove that is being questioned. It is the validity of the arguments themselves.

The detailed individual refutations of "proofs" of a god are, perhaps, yielding too much to theists/ deep sight  , for the refutations are often cast using the same logic as the "proofs" themselves, and sometimes even implicitly accept the questionable premises that the religious apologists use. Some say we should rather criticize the very process of attempting to use pure logic to attempt to prove anything about the universe. Certainly we scientists know that is futile and unacceptable. But the critics of theism are not debating with scientists. To use a person's own methods of argument to refute his argument is a worthwhile thing to do? It ought to shift the argument to other grounds if both parties are thinking rationally.

Also, I would quibble that the word "proof" is entirely inappropriate here. Proof is something you do in pure logic and pure mathematics, which are symbolic systems that by themselves tell us nothing about the so-called "real world" of experience, and certainly nothing about the supernatural. Mathematics can serve as a descriptive modeling tool in science, and a very powerful one. But the laws and theories of science are limited by the always not-quite-perfect data. When scientists are careful with their language, they never claim to "prove" anything in science and never claim "absolute truths" of any kind. This is a point many non-scientists do not appreciate.

Theists aren't always careful with the their use of the concepts of "truth" and "proof". But if they are going to claim to make any argument from scientific premises, they had better play the science game correctly. For the same reason that science cannot claim proofs and truths, so theists cannot use science to claim proofs and truths.

So let's leave proof and truth out of the discussion and simply ask, "Are any of these arguments for a god or intelligent design even suggestive or plausible or at all persuasive of the possibility of a god?" Not at all. Of course, one could argue that "anything is possible" so long as you don't have to supply credible evidence for it. That's what fairy tales and science fiction do.

Nor do the theists have any cause to shift the argument to the skeptics and demand "Prove that a god can't exist." Sorry, no one can do that any more than anyone can prove that a god could exist.

I'll be right back.

haha. I dey go school. I'll try NOT to come back on later, but I feel myself getting sucked into the nairaland vortex again.

This is why i didn't want to get into a debate with u. . .because u no dey tire  . I have close to 1000 pages of text to read and understand before friday . . Abeg free me 

Ok! You are freed.

For now only!

haha. Thank u so mush!

Krayola:

@ pastor. How does it presume a stationary universe? If nothing is stationary, why should we believe the universe ever was stationary? You only need  first mover if it wasn't already moving.

I didn't make myself very clear. If you say that if something moves then there has to be a mover then you are also saying that without a prime mover things would be stationary.

However if things were stationary then one could also argue that there is something that is making things stationary. So it becomes a moot point.

I feel u, and i agree. But as long as whatever is moving is accounted for, an infinite regression works just as well. An infinite regression does the job as well as a prime mover. Both sides can now hold firm in their positions. . . . nothing will be settled.

Now I'm not saying there has to be a mover. . . I'm saying if there had to be a mover, an infinite regression would do just fine.

Where is all these first mover debate heading to?. . ."Who created the first mover?" It's a rhetorical question, intended to rebut the "first cause" argument for all the gods or first movers. If god or the first mover is an "uncaused cause," then uncaused existence is possible. Then why can't the universe itself be uncaused? There's no reason to add the additional step of postulating a god or a first mover here. . . . .

^^^ Ododo oro.

Nope!^^^ You both have not grasped that the cosmological argument is about finite things orthings that have a beginning. What's the big bang, if not a beginning?

Ta ta. . .

@ deepsight.

Let us pretend the big-bang indeed was a beginning of something. It doesn't follow that the big bang had a beginning, or that it was the beginning of everything, or that everything had a beginning, or that it was "caused". . . . . . . .

Deep Sight:

Nope!^^^ You both have not grasped that the cosmological argument is about finite things orthings that have a beginning. What's the big bang, if not a beginning?

Ta ta. . .

That because you assume that the big bang is true. . . .scientist have explained the big bang and they do not include your nameless god as the force responsible for the expansion. . . .

mazaje:

That because you assume that the big bang is true. . . .scientist have explained the big bang and they do not include your nameless god as the force responsible for the expansion. . . .

sounds like u worship scientists , . .are they infallible?

Krayola:

@ deepsight.

Let us pretend the big-bang indeed was a beginning of something. It doesn't follow that the big bang had a beginning, or that it was the beginning of everything, or that everything had a beginning, or that it was "caused". . . . . . . .

True word Krayola, the fact that "The Big Bang" is the widely accepted theory of the beginning of what we know now does not mean that what we know now did not exist in some other form previously which would tie in quite nicely with the indestructibility but transitory nature of matter. I made that statement in another post that maybe when we are able to destroy matter, then we might come to an understanding of how it is created.

That infinite regression thing is at present an impossibly tough nut to crack and unlike mathematics where we can introduce the concept of limits, it just wouldn't work for logical reasoning cos we can't just throw those infinitely small numbers away without someone asking questions as to what we did with em.

I'm beginning to hold the view that the Universe itself has aways infinitely existed, just not in the form it is now, and that what we wrongly call creation is just another transition of matter from one state to another.
It is however all conjectures until someone proves it conclusively.

@Deepsight
I have no issues with you believing in a prime mover, I would however be more comfortable with you not giving attributes of power and intelligence to the prime mover because believing in an uncreated prime mover is actually for want of a better explanation and is subject to the same fallacies we accuse other theories that argue against the existence of God of having.
Building on that fallacy is a bit too much for me to swallow, cos it is like constructing a skyscraper on a spider's web, it just wouldn't hold up and might explain the various other inconsistencies that the god concept throws up.

Sorry for being a latecomer! However on Deepsight/Aquinas proofs of God, first the proofs are burdened with semantics; the Creator and the Creation both beg the questions for the justification of according both entities these undeserved qualifications. With that, the origin of the Creator is to go unquestioned and why the universe is a Creation is also unanswered.

The only reason for the First Cause has no Cause is simply and solely to avoid infinite regress. That's arbitrary! That could stop at the Universe, so why introduce God?! So Deepsight if infinite regress is not the main justification for a lack of cause for God, pls what is that quality that God has which exempts him from having a Cause?

Another logical flaw was claiming that God was the origin of existence. That would imply that prior to existence there was Non-existence?! Was God non existent before creating existence?! That's an absurdity. Existence is eternal and all that exists had existed ever since at least in potentiality. We both don't agree to creation ex nihilio, right?

Doesn't God have all the right attributes to function as a "Creator"?? The intent to create, the intelligence, power, inherent knowledge, will power; this delicate and rarest cocktail in your view is the foundation of all that exists; thus are we destined to exist? What are the odds? If God lacked at least just one of these attributes, would we exist?