Obviously, you would have to have a rebuttal to this by now... just wondering what it is?
Simple version:
-- There is something moving
-- Everything that moves is put into motion by something else.
-- But this series of antecedent movers cannot reach back infinitely.
-- Therefore, there must be a first mover (which is God.)
and any other responses to him...
This is a diplomatic question, so only educated answers please.
2007-07-12 17:14:55 · 17 answers · asked by Nep 6 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Heather to you: haha. Your answer basically has no thought. And your so-called Christian Algebra is no different than Atheist Algebra, which is it all came from 'The Nothing'. A big 'ol bang in the sky created by hmmmmm, this nothing thing...
I do see some interesting responses though.
2007-07-12 17:46:25 · update #1
Heather to you: you just proved my point. Anyone can throw out 'nonlogical' arguments.. "no you are"... "no, but you are." Your argument wasn't logical to begin with, and I'm not angry.
2007-07-13 07:05:28 · update #2
We don't have to be original here, do we? Especially considering the question is not...?
To Aquinas, a "first mover" (god) must exist because nothing moves without having been moved by something else — there are no exceptions. The most obvious question, "what moved god?" has no answer. Why is god an exception in an argument that rests on the premise that there are no exceptions?
Further, why assume the "first mover" possessed a conscious and deliberate will, and why elevate it to godhood? Finally, modern physics irretrievably undermines the central premise of this argument, demonstrating that uncaused effects can naturally transpire; no "first mover" required.
http://www.statenews.com/op_article.phtml?pk=39402
Other examples:
http://philosophy.ucdavis.edu/mattey/phi001/aquinaslec.html
http://www.otago.ac.nz/philosophy/229-329/P210-Cosmological%20Arguments.pdf
"never heard anything but a throw up their hands kind of answer"
Not very well read, are you?
2007-07-12 17:32:00 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
The "prime mover" argument does not establish a definition of god nor does it support any specific religion.
The second part "everything that moves is put into motion by something else" is actually an assumption that does not necessarily have anything to do with the scientific findings regarding the origin of the universe
In short Thomas Aquinas and his prime mover argument are largely ignored today by serious researchers
2007-07-13 00:19:50 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 11⤊ 0⤋
Okay, what moved god?
Why can't the series of antecedent movers reach back infinitely? Why can't the universe be infinite? Perhaps the concept of infinity may not be comprehended by all, it does not rule it out as a possibility.
2007-07-13 00:27:54 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
"Everything that moves is put into motion by something else."
That is our experience, but at the quantum level some processes seem to violate cause and effect. Many radioactive decay processes appear to be spontaneous. We cannot assume that this premise is true.
"Therefore, there must be a first mover(which is God.)"
There is no reason that it couldn't be the exception to the rule and is no conscious process involved.
2007-07-13 00:26:50 · answer #4 · answered by novangelis 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
This is what we call Christian Algebra. You don't know the value of x so the right answer must be God!!! And there is a huge leap from the third point to the last.
I think this is a quite dull point of view and shows the ignorance of the man. There isn't even a valid point. It's just a series of statements that sound like no thought was put into it.
2007-07-13 00:21:31 · answer #5 · answered by Sheriff of R&S 4 · 7⤊ 1⤋
If by "first mover" you mean the big bang, then yes. There is no giant invisible man in the sky controlling it all, is what we're saying. Even if there was a god, something had to create him and we're back at square 1. It had to start somewhere.
2007-07-13 00:19:11 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
1. The assumption that the first mover is called God is where the entire theory breaks down.
2. The hypothesis does nothing to support the story of Jesus being the son of God.
2007-07-13 00:19:42 · answer #7 · answered by Kathryn™ 6 · 8⤊ 0⤋
God is first because God is timeless. The universe is contained within time and space. God created time and space. We know that the universe cannot be infinitely old because if it was, then it would have to pass through an infinite amount of events to get to the present time. That would never happen. We would never get here. There had to be a beginning. God doesn't need a beginning because He is not within time and space. He is timeless. Our brains can't hold something like that because we are timebound creatures and our minds are limited, but it's what Christians and I suppose other faiths believe about God.
2007-07-13 00:23:40 · answer #8 · answered by fuzz 4 · 0⤊ 4⤋
Aquinas concludes this question with a useless answer. What created God? If God doesn't require a creation, why must the universe?
2007-07-13 00:20:49 · answer #9 · answered by Brent L 5 · 7⤊ 0⤋
I say he's an idiot, because by his logic God would also have to have a mover, and his mover would have to have a mover, and so on. He didn't think his theory out very well apparently
2007-07-13 00:19:55 · answer #10 · answered by lindsey p 2 · 8⤊ 1⤋