How do you draw a line from the unmoved mover argument to a personal god that cares about your sex life?

Answer 1

I think it goes something like this.

A) Every effect must have a cause.
B) Every cause is an effect
C) ∴, by substitution, every cause must have a cause.
↓
A2) Every cause must have a cause
B2) Every cause must precede its effect.
C2) ∴, by regression, the "first cause" must have occured an infinite expanse of time ago.
↓
A3) The "first cause" must have occured an infinite expanse of time ago.
B3) It is impossible to traverse an infinite span of time.
C3) ∴, by modus tolens, the "first cause" is impossible.
↓
A4) The "first cause" is impossible.
B4) As evidenced by the fact that things exist, the "first cause" is certain.
C4) ∴, by substituion and modus tolens, an impossible thing happened.
↓
A5) An impossible thing is certain.
B5) The basic principles of logic state that impossible things cannot happen.
C5) ∴, by inference, the basic principles of logic are wrong.
↓
A6) The basic principles of logic are wrong.
↓
Faith is reasonable.
↓
Let's burn all the witches.
↓
Women are just here to make babies.
↓
Pork is evil.
↓
Dinosaurs are an evil atheist conspiracy.
↓
Bananas are proof of God.
↓
Gay sex is wrong.

Q.E.D.

Answer 2

If you were a Neoplatonist or a Hermeticist or an Advaita Vedantist (which I think I technically am all 3 these days) you would be able to conceive of a transcendental unmoved mover and would be able to regard yourself and the world of name and form as an expression (or projection) of That. You also would have an understanding about why a person entertains the idea of a personal God who cares about the incidental ego-personality (his/ her welfare, sex life, whatever). Although you might even "believe in" this personal God, you would only do so in a metaphorical sense. The idea of a personal God would be considered a psychological or psychospiritual tool through which to relate to a transcendental idea. This manner of reasoning may not be possible among persons ascribing to pedestrian monotheistic beliefs but those involved in more mystical or philosophically sophisticated practices within the Judeo-Christian tradition might be able to manage it to some degree.

The line drawn has to do with the historical evolution of religious philosophy in the West. Where once a concept of a unmoved mover was maintained along with a philosophy about why the world was as it was with all of its vicissitudes, now most people of faith in the West believe in a person in the sky who they reflect their neuroses onto and who then in turn (they imagine) make certain impositions on them based on those neuroses.

Answer 3

this may well be a great question. Astrological compatibility is a delicate difficulty for me. in basic terms because of the fact astrology might point out that 2 human beings could be suitable for one greater does not advise they're going to stay at the same time or actually have a reliable courting. because of the fact the area of the sunlight, Moon, planets, and so on. are in user-friendly terms impacts on the character and because upbringing, unfastened will, and environment are the different factors in determining who you're then any compatibility analyzing is open to have something take place. that's the reason I continually say no astrological experience is impossible, in basic terms because of the fact it shows that a pair is incompatible does not advise they could not be thankfully married until eventually the day they die. So I usually stay faraway from those questions until eventually they're particular approximately what they desire to understand and until eventually they have sufficient information. If all they understand are sunlight indicators i come across it fairly ineffective because of the fact sunlight indicators advise little or no in relationships as an entire. I save on with in basic terms speaking approximately how their Moon, Venus, and Mercury indicators paintings with one yet another and concentration on attempting to tutor them the place they may well be alike and different in those aspects. i don't do synastry or Davison charts or any of the others. that's not my reliable point and that i think of this area is the place human beings tend to be counted too heavily on astrology because of the fact the be all end all and astrology could never be concept if in that way. Skeptics like to get into this area in the thank you to "disprove" astrology and undesirable questions upload gas to the fire reason they get solutions sometimes which at the instant are not proper and supply those haters something to apply, IMO.

Answer 4

How do you assume the latter from the former?

I think most believers take for granted that a personal God exists, and then consider the argument from first cause to support that belief. So it's not a conclusion as much as an assumption.

I suppose one could argue that a "being" that cared enough to set up our universe may care about our daily lives.

[edit] Obviously, as an atheist, I don't support this type of logic.

Answer 5

How do you draw a line from this boring a subject matter... and nonsensical, at that.. to ANY sex life? (much less that a god would care about your sex life, other than procreation? or keeping it away from anything that can cause another harm, or you, in fact...)

Answer 6

The unmoved mover argument is flawed in and of itself.

When someone uses it to prove the validity of their religion, its just funny.

"The second law of thermodynamics proves that Jesus is the path to salvation."

Answer 7

Fun fact:

There is no way. That line of thinking was attempted by Descartes. He failed. He started taking it to it's logical conclusion (which is what Spinoza ended up doing for him) and had to stop because his patrons would have yanked his funding and he would have been declaired a heretic (the introduction includes a letter he sent to a local Bishop assuring him that his writings were totally consistant with Christian teaching [they weren't].)

Answer 8

God does not care about my sex life. At least he wouldn't, if I had one.

Answer 9

The same way you draw a line from a room in your parents basement to giving life lessons to the rest of the world.

Answer 10

You need the same kind of crayon that kid in the children's book used, remember? He drew things and they became real? It's like that.