The REAL Unmoved mover argument; can you challenge the it?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-09-2015, 11:06 AM
RE: The REAL Unmoved mover argument; can you challenge the it?
Can one of the mods check this one for socks? I'm sniffing troll.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-09-2015, 11:12 AM
RE: The REAL Unmoved mover argument; can you challenge the it?
(02-09-2015 05:35 AM)Waves Wrote:  
(01-09-2015 03:32 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  And it fails because it does not recognize that water, which is potentially ice, is still actually water, and can thus act on other potentials.


Let's take a thing (water for example), It has an actual form (ex: form 1: liquid) that can change to another form (ex: form 2 : solid) which is potential. To change from one form to another (even if nothing is created and that it remains water) or, to be precise, to actualize one thing (liquid -> solid), the argument says it need something already actual; an actualizer. This concept doesn't contrary the idea of an infinite universe.

Yes. And your point is?

The water is still an actual.

(02-09-2015 05:35 AM)Waves Wrote:  Do you pretend that things can move by themselves?

No.

(02-09-2015 05:35 AM)Waves Wrote:  Or that motion need no cause at all?

No.

(02-09-2015 05:35 AM)Waves Wrote:  Or something else?

Read my posts before attempting to reply.

The argument poses a false dichotomy between "actuals" and "potentials". It crumbles the moment that you realize that everything is both a potential and an actual.

This is not a complicated concept.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-09-2015, 11:41 AM (This post was last modified: 02-09-2015 12:06 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: The REAL Unmoved mover argument; can you challenge the it?
There is no "not in motion". What appears to us in this locality, to be "still" really is not. It's a stupid argument based on taking what is observed in this locality to be universal. "Prime mover" needs no refutation. What might need an explanation is how exactly something is not moving. All Aquinas' arguments are based on what humans at this level of reality find "intuitively true. That has been proven false in many ways. Why are we even wasting time with this old fart anyway ? Aquinas did not know about Relativity or Uncertainty.

Edit : What the argument should be is for the "unaccelerated accelerator". Tongue
Weeping

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
02-09-2015, 11:43 AM
RE: The REAL Unmoved mover argument; can you challenge the it?
(02-09-2015 11:41 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  There is no "not in motion". What appears to us in this locality, to be "still" really is not. It's a stupid argument based on taking what is observed in this locality to be universal. "Prime mover" need no refutation. What might need an explanation is how exactly something is not moving. All Aquinas' arguments are based on what humans at this level of reality find "intuitively true". That has been proven false in many ways. Why are we even wasting time with this old fart anyway ? Aquinas did not know about Relativity or Uncertainty.

What I said, but with less Gwynnies. Big Grin

living word
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-09-2015, 11:51 AM
RE: The REAL Unmoved mover argument; can you challenge the it?
(02-09-2015 11:41 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  There is no "not in motion". What appears to us in this locality, to be "still" really is not.

In Waves' defense, Aquinas does not use the term "motion" to mean actual movement. He uses it to mean "changing from one state to another". The argument is that an object cannot act upon itself, so every object must be acted upon by something else - and, therefore, there must be an object which is not acted upon by something else, but acts upon everything.

It's still entirely nonsensical and betrays a complete lack of understanding of the way the universe operates, though.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Unbeliever's post
02-09-2015, 12:00 PM
RE: The REAL Unmoved mover argument; can you challenge the it?
(02-09-2015 10:28 AM)TurkeyBurner Wrote:  
(02-09-2015 05:35 AM)Waves Wrote:  he is arguing that a chain of dependencies here and now must depend on something not dependent on anything further

Doesn't dependency imply chronology? Otherwise, you will need to explain how an effect could be caused by or dependent upon something that hasn't happened/existed prior the effect?

I'll give an example for each of the infinity implied to show the difference.

For the infinity about chronology: An egg came from this chicken, but that chicken must have come from another chicken, which must have come from another chicken, and so on. But since an infinity is a mathematical impossibility, there must have been some first chicken in the past, otherwise there would be no subsequent chickens. Aquinas don't have any problem with this kind of infinite: The chickens might have been laying eggs from eternity; no need for a first chicken in the past.

For the infinity about dependency : a hand moving a stick moving a rock. The stick's ability to move the rock is entirely derivative from the hand; the stick has no ability to move the rock on its own, and derives that ability entirely from the hand. Since its causal ability is entirely derivative, there must be something from which that ability is derived. If the stick was pushed by another stick which was pushed by another stick in an infinitely long chain of sticks, there would be no hand and therefore no source of motion for the stick to derive its ability to move the rock.
The later members of such series serve as causes only insofar as they have been caused by and are effects of earlier members. Because the intermediate causes insuch series possess causal powers only by deriving them from all the preceding causes,they need a first and non-derivative cause to serve as the source of their causal powers.

(02-09-2015 10:55 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  
(02-09-2015 09:45 AM)Waves Wrote:  Can you explain me why the argument defeat itself and why "the argument becomes God quarreling with himself" please? I don't understand your post. Undecided

The same thing that compels you to seek a refutation to the argument is the same thing that compels us to offer that refutation is the same thing that compels the theist to offer the argument in the first place.

In the terms of the argument, of course. Wink

With knowledge, language, empathy, and understanding, it is as if we each keep some of our concepts in each others pockets. The problem we have now is that we don't have Aquinas's pockets. We no longer have the context of the culture where everybody believed god to be self-evident. This in itself indicates that the conclusion of god's omni existence is erroneous.

The pockets we do have are science and reason and experimental evidence. This thing here that I click on to communicate to you way da fuq over there is the real miracle. We know where computers come from, where technology comes from, these are the pockets we're picking now. In essence we got here by removing the identity term from every variable as extraneous - which it is.

When the theist presents this argument for the existence of god he overlooks the fact that god is already within him compelling him to present the argument. When the atheist refutes the argument, he does so without the presence of god. If each one is right within the context of their own conceptual framework, the conclusion to be drawn by the observer is that god does not exist.

Simple. Thumbsup

I don't think I presuppose God is already existing before stating an argument (plus I am not a believer). What interest me more is the reasoning behind the argument. Aquinas probably didn't have the same reasoning as us, but I must admit that I really lack a scientific education. I think that sciences, probably physics, can maybe refute the argument or the potency/actuality concept. However, I have some argument in the sources against the counterarguments from Newton and from the law of inertia (but maybe they aren't compelling).

(02-09-2015 11:06 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Can one of the mods check this one for socks? I'm sniffing troll.

Why do you think I am a troll? Even if I was theist, I try to argue the case and not fly away putting my finger in my ears. My objective is really to be debunked, to be proven I am so wrong that I can't defend the case without being a dick or using sophistry.

(02-09-2015 11:12 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(02-09-2015 05:35 AM)Waves Wrote:  Let's take a thing (water for example), It has an actual form (ex: form 1: liquid) that can change to another form (ex: form 2 : solid) which is potential. To change from one form to another (even if nothing is created and that it remains water) or, to be precise, to actualize one thing (liquid -> solid), the argument says it need something already actual; an actualizer. This concept doesn't contrary the idea of an infinite universe.

Yes. And your point is?

The water is still an actual.

(02-09-2015 05:35 AM)Waves Wrote:  Do you pretend that things can move by themselves?

No.

(02-09-2015 05:35 AM)Waves Wrote:  Or that motion need no cause at all?

No.

(02-09-2015 05:35 AM)Waves Wrote:  Or something else?

Read my posts before attempting to reply.

The argument poses a false dichotomy between "actuals" and "potentials". It crumbles the moment that you realize that everything is both a potential and an actual.

This is not a complicated concept.

Now that is interesting. I didn't understood it at first. Since "actual thing" means existant thing; can't I argue that even if water remains water (and thus actual on the content) need an actualizer to change it "states" (the "form")? But your point is interesting to develop.

(02-09-2015 11:05 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Badly restating an argument doesn't make it any more true.

The language of "potential", "actual", etc is physically illiterate. Things can't "be" potential. "Potential" isn't a thing. It's an attribute at best if we try to re-express it in physically coherent terms. Badly reifying interaction and emergence and calling it God isn't compelling. The arguments about infinity are mathematically illiterate, but they don't even matter - the causality we observe and the framework in which it occurs are one and the same: the observable universe. Contingent understandings do not apply beyond the situations in which they were derived.

In real science, we make guesses about what might happen under different circumstances, and then we test them to see if we're right.
(theology is much easier to do - just blindly assert whatever you like and call it a day)

Any claim to apply a (usually ignorant and intuitive) understanding of reality (ie, causality, or emergence) to conditions beyond the observable universe is the holy grail of special pleading.

That's an interesting point, could you develop a little more please to explain me more why the aristotelician concept of act/potency is false (or at least, not consistent) in regard to modern science? Should I understand that it is the same as the counter-argument against the usual PSR stating that we can't prove if something is contingent (may or may not exist) and thus pretending that all contingent things have a cause is a presupposition?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Waves's post
02-09-2015, 12:11 PM
RE: The REAL Unmoved mover argument; can you challenge the it?
(02-09-2015 12:00 PM)Waves Wrote:  Now that is interesting. I didn't understood it at first. Since "actual thing" means existant thing; can't I argue that even if water remains water (and thus actual on the content) need an actualizer to change it "states" (the "form")? But your point is interesting to develop.

The molecule "water" is really a combination of two hydrogen atoms, (which are really a collection of many sub-atomic particles) and an oxygen atom. In that sense ''water" does not exist. It comes in a few forms, (radicals), and is ultimately energy. So, no. There is no "state" to change.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-09-2015, 12:27 PM
RE: The REAL Unmoved mover argument; can you challenge the it?
(02-09-2015 12:00 PM)Waves Wrote:  Now that is interesting. I didn't understood it at first. Since "actual thing" means existant thing; can't I argue that even if water remains water (and thus actual on the content) need an actualizer to change it "states" (the "form")?

Yes. But since literally everything is an actual, there is no need for a prime mover.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-09-2015, 12:34 PM
RE: The REAL Unmoved mover argument; can you challenge the it?
(02-09-2015 12:00 PM)Waves Wrote:  
(02-09-2015 11:05 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Badly restating an argument doesn't make it any more true.

The language of "potential", "actual", etc is physically illiterate. Things can't "be" potential. "Potential" isn't a thing. It's an attribute at best if we try to re-express it in physically coherent terms. Badly reifying interaction and emergence and calling it God isn't compelling. The arguments about infinity are mathematically illiterate, but they don't even matter - the causality we observe and the framework in which it occurs are one and the same: the observable universe. Contingent understandings do not apply beyond the situations in which they were derived.

In real science, we make guesses about what might happen under different circumstances, and then we test them to see if we're right.
(theology is much easier to do - just blindly assert whatever you like and call it a day)

Any claim to apply a (usually ignorant and intuitive) understanding of reality (ie, causality, or emergence) to conditions beyond the observable universe is the holy grail of special pleading.

That's an interesting point, could you develop a little more please to explain me more why the aristotelician concept of act/potency is false (or at least, not consistent) in regard to modern science?

It's not a valid construct because it's drawing category errors into an invalid reified dichotomy.

An object and its properties cannot be separated. There is no dualism there. An object has "potential" insofar as it exists in certain states and may exhibit a transition between states. This not somehow an outside process - it is a consequence of it possessing the properties it does.

Water does not have the "potential" to be ice. It exhibits many different physical states based on its condition - the primary factor being the average kinetic energy (temperature) of the particles themselves, and how that compares to the various inter-molecular forces.

Or - if it does, then it likewise has the "potential" to be literally anything. There is no theoretical limit to my manipulation of water molecules. If enough energy is applied the binding energy between atoms is overcome. Now you've got hydrogen and oxygen gas. Does water have the "potential" to be two separate gasses? Evidently, yes. If more energy is applied the gas molecules break apart, and if enough is applied the intra-atomic binding energy is exceeded. Does water have the "potential" to be a proton sea? Evidently, yes. Now apply even more energy: you'll get free quarks. Does water have the "potential" to be free up and down quarks? Evidently, yes. Suppose instead we stop with our plasma and apply the energy differently - nuclear fusion. From H-H and O-O reactions, we now have helium and silicon. Does water have the "potential" to be helium and silicon? Evidently, yes. So our water has the "potential" to be any known form of matter in the universe.

In what sense, then, can the word be meaningful?

Aristotle also thought things only moved when they were pushed. He was stunningly ignorant. His veneration limited scientific progress for a thousand years. What reason could you possibly have to treat his natural philosophy as valid? Aquinas couldn't have known better; what's your excuse?

(02-09-2015 12:00 PM)Waves Wrote:  Should I understand that it is the same as the counter-argument against the usual PSR stating that we can't prove if something is contingent (may or may not exist) and thus pretending that all contingent things have a cause is a presupposition?

Contingent means limited to certain conditions. Our understanding of the universe is limited to the conditions found in the observable universe, which we observe back to the big bang; that's what makes it contingent. It makes no sense to apply those understandings beyond those conditions - it is meaningless by definition to do so.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like cjlr's post
02-09-2015, 12:43 PM
RE: The REAL Unmoved mover argument; can you challenge the it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_(fallacy)

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: