The REAL Unmoved mover argument; can you challenge the it?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-09-2015, 04:45 PM
RE: The REAL Unmoved mover argument; can you challenge the it?
One problem all of this has is the very unintuitive nature of infinity. Hilbert's Hotel demonstrates this. In an infinite causal chain you'd never reach a point where something uncaused happens, some ultimate inert point, since at any point there is always another point prior to it to cause the point you're worried about. We can't even think sensibly about any of this. Suppose that the universe is cyclical, infinitely so. The natural question is to ask what caused the first cycle, but this is a contradiction. There is no first cycle, because any cycle you pick always has a prior cycle. To see this, consider what it means to ask what the last cycle in an infinite series of cycles would be. This makes no sense, since for any point there's always more to come. That's the nature of infinity, and it mocks our natural understanding of things which is based on beginnings and endings which don't occur in trans-finite series.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like OddGamer's post
01-09-2015, 05:50 PM (This post was last modified: 01-09-2015 05:57 PM by houseofcantor.)
RE: The REAL Unmoved mover argument; can you challenge the it?
(01-09-2015 08:40 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  The argument defeats itself. Big Grin

I'm sure the educated around here could give it a more formal thrashing, but anybody wants to try that with me is likely to convert to Gwynnite. Thumbsup

To clarify this original statement, the prophet in me simplifies the whole thing thus:
God is animus.
All life, all animation, is driven by God. Thus the argument becomes God quarreling with himself. And from previous experience, yer standard evangelical cannot run his neck about God like I can about my Gwynnies. Heart

Firstly, however; I could be completely wrong. Christian theology bores me to sleep.
Secondly, the audience here prefers scholarly presentation as opposed to the rantings of a nutbag. Big Grin

living word
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes houseofcantor's post
01-09-2015, 05:54 PM
RE: The REAL Unmoved mover argument; can you challenge the it?
(01-09-2015 05:50 AM)Waves Wrote:  (Okay I admit, this title was a little quite provocative)

Hello Smile

I consider myself as an agnostic-atheist, but I recently came across a "new" version of the first Way of Aquinas, or as some would argue : the "non-strawman fallacy" version. It seems like the rejections I knew about the first way do not longer works. For example, the argument seems compatible with an eternal universe and it answers the "How could you say that the pure act is God?"

But at the same time my sceptic mind wonder if the argument is really valid "as" (or "almost as") a proof; or at least as a reason that believing in god is more rational than not. Are there really strong counter-arguments to this version? Huh

Maybe I will take the rol of the Devil's (or I should say "God's" ) attorney in this thread. Not because I want to troll, but because I really want to find if there are Good and Solid objections against the first Way. So do not hesitate to give me your best shots (with sources if possible) in all ways you think the argument can be refuted Thumbsup

The argument is state here this link: http://imgur.com/pnoaIIC

A fuller version can be found here: https://www.reddit.com/r/cosmologicalargument/

The argument fails for many reasons.

1. It is a "God of the Gaps" argument. X happens, therefore Y occurs, therefore God. The problem is that there is no evidence of any god, and no evidence of any possible god intervening in the chain.

2. The argument is a "First Cause" argument. There is no direct conclusive evidence of a first cause even in the current Big Bang model, let alone anything that could be attributed to any god.

3. The argument assumes an origin to existence. There is no evidence that existence- the universe- ever had an origin. Even the Big Bang theory falls victim to the infinite regression problem ie; what came before the Big Bang? And what came before that, and before that, and so on.

4. The argument assumes that potentiality creates actuality. The reality is that nothing is ever created, as everything is constantly in a state of eternal flux as matter and energy change from one form to another in an endless pattern of recycling.

In conclusion, that argument is nothing more than another theist's attempt to justify his belief in a deity, and fails the acid text of reason, scepticism, and rationality.

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Free's post
01-09-2015, 05:59 PM
RE: The REAL Unmoved mover argument; can you challenge the it?
A big part of me is suspicious of the OP as it isnt the first time we have had an errant theist stumble into our forum pretending to be an atheist, and asking us to dismantle someone else's argument....they usually expose themselves pretty quickly.....like perhaps in his post #2...but we shall see...finished my homework and have about 20 mins to waste before getting ready for duty tomorrow, let me go peek at this "new spin" on the first causal fallacy.

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes goodwithoutgod's post
01-09-2015, 06:19 PM (This post was last modified: 01-09-2015 06:27 PM by goodwithoutgod.)
RE: The REAL Unmoved mover argument; can you challenge the it?
(01-09-2015 05:50 AM)Waves Wrote:  (Okay I admit, this title was a little quite provocative)

Hello Smile

I consider myself as an agnostic-atheist, but I recently came across a "new" version of the first Way of Aquinas, or as some would argue : the "non-strawman fallacy" version. It seems like the rejections I knew about the first way do not longer works. For example, the argument seems compatible with an eternal universe and it answers the "How could you say that the pure act is God?"

But at the same time my sceptic mind wonder if the argument is really valid "as" (or "almost as") a proof; or at least as a reason that believing in god is more rational than not. Are there really strong counter-arguments to this version? Huh

Maybe I will take the rol of the Devil's (or I should say "God's" ) attorney in this thread. Not because I want to troll, but because I really want to find if there are Good and Solid objections against the first Way. So do not hesitate to give me your best shots (with sources if possible) in all ways you think the argument can be refuted Thumbsup

The argument is state here this link: http://imgur.com/pnoaIIC

A fuller version can be found here: https://www.reddit.com/r/cosmologicalargument/

You aren't serious right? You came in here to give ol GWG a good laugh...who put you up to this? Facepalm

Lets take a few pokes at this epiphany of stupidity.

"motion means change"

*slow clap* yup. Something set into motion has a cause. Basic concept, lets look further...

"change means the conversion from potential to actual"

oh my....be still my heart...no shit. Enter the beginning of the woo ...get this folks....water is only "potential" ice as it had no means of getting cold by itself Gasp wait theres more....

"because potentials cannot do anything, they cannot make themselves actual" Rolleyes

Thus the water, cannot become ice because it requires "something that is ITSELF actual has to actualize the potential"... oh goodness.....could it be...a freezer...i.e. god? well shit, you just proved god Laugh out load

No no, it gets better...lets continue:

"this forms a chain of dependence operating RIGHT NOW...IN THE PRESENT"..."remove any element of the chain, and water wont freeze"....

geezus this is just sad, did a 10yo come up with this? Another presentation of irreducible complexity....the old watchmaker yarn. I will dismantle this hogwash now:

William Paley's watchmaker argument (design implies a designer). Also bleeds into the complexity theory. Think of a tornado, does a mystical super being push a theoretical button and create a tornado? I would like to think not, the complexity can emerge as a natural result of a system and not as designed or orchestrated by an entity.

- David Hume argued that for the design argument to be feasible, it must be true that order and purpose are observed only when they result from design. But order is observed regularly, resulting from presumably mindless processes like snowflake or crystal generation. Design accounts for only a tiny part of our experience with order and "purpose". Furthermore, the design argument is based on an incomplete analogy: because of our experience with objects, we can recognize human-designed ones, comparing for example a pile of stones and a brick wall. But to point to a designed Universe, we would need to have an experience of a range of different universes.

As we only experience one, the analogy cannot be applied. We must ask therefore if it is right to compare the world to a machine—as in Paley's watchmaker argument—when perhaps it would be better described as a giant inert animal. Even if the design argument is completely successful, it could not (in and of itself) establish a robust theism; one could easily reach the conclusion that the universe's configuration is the result of some morally ambiguous, possibly unintelligent agent or agents whose method bears only a remote similarity to human design. In this way it could be asked if the designer was God, or further still, who designed the designer? Hume also reasoned that if a well-ordered natural world requires a special designer, then God's mind (being so well ordered) also requires a special designer. And then this designer would likewise need a designer, and so on ad infinitum. We could respond by resting content with an inexplicably self-ordered divine mind but then why not rest content with an inexplicably self-ordered natural world?

- Richard Dawkins argues that the watch analogy conflates the difference between the complexity that arises from living organisms that are able to reproduce themselves (and as such may change to become more complex over time) and the complexity of inanimate objects, unable to pass on any reproductive changes (such as the multitude of parts manufactured in a watch). The comparison breaks down because of this important distinction.

Dawkins described Paley's argument as being "as mistaken as it is elegant". In both contexts he saw Paley as having made an incorrect proposal as to a certain problem's solution, but did not disrespect him for this. In his essay The big bang, Steven Pinker discussed Dawkins' coverage of Paley's argument, adding: "Biologists today do not disagree with Paley's laying out of the problem. They disagree only with his solution."

In his book, The God Delusion, Dawkins argues that life was the result of complex biological processes. Dawkins makes the argument that the comparison to the lucky construction of a watch is fallacious because proponents of evolution do not consider evolution "lucky"; rather than luck, the evolution of human life is the result of billions of years of natural selection. He therefore concludes that evolution is a fair contestant to replace God in the role of watchmaker.

- this argument suffers from a number of critical flaws, the biggest flaw being a failure to understand why no amount of empirical evidence will support Paley’s Watchmaker Analogy. This stems from a failure to understand how analogies work: analogies are not arguments. Analogies illustrate arguments, and insofar as one only makes an analogy (but fails to sketch out the meat of the argument), then one is failing to make an argument.

But I’m willing to be a little flexible on this point: insofar as a good argument is one that is clear and unambiguous, and insofar as an analogy is less clear than a list of premises followed by a conclusion, then an analogy is a bad argument. Sure, good rhetoric has implicit/hidden premises, but good arguments don’t.

The Watchmaker Analogy will never demonstrate that design is true, or that belief in design is justified, no matter the evidence. Allow me to provide an analogy to illustrate my point. Imagine, if you will, that we have a painting by a particular artist. The artist has admitted to creating the painting, and people witnessed the creation. The artist has a distinctive style and technique, prefers to use certain unique materials (which are generally not used by other artists). In short, there are a set of characteristics that are associated with this particular artist.

Now suppose that we find a second piece of art. The artist is silent as to whether or not they created this new piece. We start to investigate all the materials and techniques that went into creating this picture, and every characteristic we identify in the second picture, matches a characteristic in the ‘set of characteristics’ mentioned above. Are we justified in concluding that the same artist also created this picture? If not, if we keep accumulating more and more ‘characteristics’, will our conclusion eventually be justified?

Absolutely not.

I’ll attempt to make the argument clear:

1) There exists a painting (P1) known to have been painted by an Artist (A1)

2) The construction of P1 consisted of certain steps (S1) known to be associated with A1.

3) If a painting (P2) is constructed according to S1, then P2 was created by A1.

4) P2 was constructed according to S1.

5) P2 was created by A1.

The flaw in this argument lies in Premise 3. Premise 3 fails to account for any alternative hypotheses, such as the existence of another artist (A2, A3, … An) who also utilises S1. Changing Premise 3 to the more weak “If a painting (P2) is constructed according to S1, then P2 was probably created by A1” doesn’t resolve this issue. Once we arrive at the conclusion that it’s possible the painting was created by either A1 or A2, we now need to compare A1 and A2 (themselves) to see how likely it is that they created the painting.

Paley’s argument is that a designer (A1) is known to have created a watch (P1), and the marks of design (S1) can be found in the watch. By analogy, Paley claims that life (P2) also exhibits these marks (S1), ergo a designer (A1) is responsible for the creation of life. This argument fails because it fails to take into account an alternative explanation, namely that the processes of Evolution (A2) also exhibit S1.

You can make S1 consist of 10 points of similarity, 1000 points, or 1,000,000 points of similarity: so long as those other points are likewise explained by evolution, one is not justified in simply declaring “alright so, they were designed”. Merely shoveling in more data into S1 is irrelevant.

At this point, anyone acting in accordance with intellectual integrity will move their investigation up a notch, to discuss whether or not A1 (god) or A2 (evolution) exists. As there are only self-contradictory definitions of god, and as there is no evidence for god, and as there are no non-question-begging arguments for god, one cannot assert that god (A1) is a viable explanatory mechanism.

As the arguments for god collapses, the argument for theistic design collapses. The argument is fatally flawed not because of a lack of empirical data, but due to the insufficiency of the arguments for god.

oh lets see what else they posit...

then they babble on about how a chain of events cannot be infinite...and show a picture of a really long paintbrush and say a long paintbrush cannot paint by itself, and there MUST be a hand holding the brush *gasp*

buahahahahahahahahahahhahaaa oh Holy Norrg this is priceless. Was this shit on facebook or something?

wait for it....wait for it....and this "something"...this "force" must be...*Key dramatic music* god. Dodgy

You are going to have to do better than this theism 101 basic level bullshit that has been solidly refuted time and time again....what else you got?

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like goodwithoutgod's post
01-09-2015, 06:47 PM
RE: The REAL Unmoved mover argument; can you challenge the it?
(01-09-2015 05:50 AM)Waves Wrote:  The argument is state here this link: http://imgur.com/pnoaIIC

The argument presupposes causality is "actual" or "real" and not a figment of our collective imagination we impose on reality to enable us to make sense of what the fuck is "actually" going on. At least that's what I'd open with.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-09-2015, 06:52 PM (This post was last modified: 01-09-2015 07:03 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: The REAL Unmoved mover argument; can you challenge the it?
(01-09-2015 04:45 PM)OddGamer Wrote:  One problem all of this has is the very unintuitive nature of infinity. Hilbert's Hotel demonstrates this. In an infinite causal chain you'd never reach a point where something uncaused happens, some ultimate inert point, since at any point there is always another point prior to it to cause the point you're worried about. We can't even think sensibly about any of this. Suppose that the universe is cyclical, infinitely so. The natural question is to ask what caused the first cycle, but this is a contradiction. There is no first cycle, because any cycle you pick always has a prior cycle. To see this, consider what it means to ask what the last cycle in an infinite series of cycles would be. This makes no sense, since for any point there's always more to come. That's the nature of infinity, and it mocks our natural understanding of things which is based on beginnings and endings which don't occur in trans-finite series.

To further expound: The Hilbert Hotel

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like GirlyMan's post
01-09-2015, 07:31 PM (This post was last modified: 01-09-2015 08:02 PM by Free.)
RE: The REAL Unmoved mover argument; can you challenge the it?
(01-09-2015 06:52 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(01-09-2015 04:45 PM)OddGamer Wrote:  One problem all of this has is the very unintuitive nature of infinity. Hilbert's Hotel demonstrates this. In an infinite causal chain you'd never reach a point where something uncaused happens, some ultimate inert point, since at any point there is always another point prior to it to cause the point you're worried about. We can't even think sensibly about any of this. Suppose that the universe is cyclical, infinitely so. The natural question is to ask what caused the first cycle, but this is a contradiction. There is no first cycle, because any cycle you pick always has a prior cycle. To see this, consider what it means to ask what the last cycle in an infinite series of cycles would be. This makes no sense, since for any point there's always more to come. That's the nature of infinity, and it mocks our natural understanding of things which is based on beginnings and endings which don't occur in trans-finite series.

To further expound: The Hilbert Hotel

Just remove the buses and all you have left is an infinite number of people still going into an infinite number of rooms.

It's all about the people and the rooms, the buses are not part of the equation.

There is no infinity times infinity. It's an illusion. There also can be no time, as infinity is not related to time, but is hand-in-hand with eternity. One cannot be without the other, and neither are restricted by any kind of time-line. Time is a measurement, eternity is not.

The Hilbert Hotel is merely a construction of a time-line with infinite points stretching into infinity, eternally.

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Free's post
01-09-2015, 07:57 PM
RE: The REAL Unmoved mover argument; can you challenge the it?
I read the argument, and the second I saw the word "potential ice" I facepalmed. So hard.

This relies upon the assumption that there are intended outcomes. I puts in place distinctions that are not real. And it makes assumptions that don't pan out. And did I notice a few words like "omnipotence" and "omniscience" try to sneak in there? And this logically impossible thing is also guilty of special pleading with not needing an explanation (I saw them try to sneak "eternal" in there) which everything else is said to need.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes natachan's post
01-09-2015, 08:09 PM
RE: The REAL Unmoved mover argument; can you challenge the it?
God of the gaps. It is always god of the gaps!

So OP, if you read Origen will you then castrate yourself with a blunt knife?

I too read the ancients. I regret the wasted time and wish I'd studied physics.

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Banjo's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: