Phoenix and Indy discuss God's Existence

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Please note that I have no problem with anyone else jumping in.

Let's start off one at a time. My first reason I will give for the existence of God will be the first way of Thomas Aquinas. I await the response.

[Indy]

Greetings again, Nick. (You can call me Rich, or stick with Indy.)

Interesting start... it's not a very common argument these days. So, my understanding is that Aquinas was arguing, with his understanding of cosmology at the time, was that since the planets, etc. were in motion, something had to be causing that motion, which would necessarily be God. Perhaps applied in a modern context, one could turn that into a "God caused the Big Bang" argument? How do you interpret, as a starting point?

[Cerebrum123]

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Hi Indy. It's really not a good starting point. It's an understandable one, but not a good one. Aquinas's argument has zip to do with cosmology in the sense of dependence. You are assuming I think that motion means physical motion. Physical motion is a type of motion but motion is much grander than that.

[Indy]

Speaking of starting points.. :) I've also heard it as kind of a "something must have set the first thing in motion, in motion," or, something similar to a first cause argument. Do you see it as a strong argument for existence, and why? (Or if you think there would be a better starting point..?)

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Well Indy, that all depends on what exactly motion is. Once that is established, the strength of the argument can be played out.

[Indy]

Gotta admit, you've piqued my curiosity as to where you're headed with this. Just for clarity, are we discussing Aquinas's views, or (I assume) yours?

So, motion is typically thought of as a change in position respective to two points in time. (Which could raise the questions of what position and time are, particularly time.)

Also bears mentioning that motion is relative to one's frame of reference, and neither vantage point is truly "stationary," just stationary to that observer.

Back to you...

[ApologiaPhoenix]

I am going with my understanding of Aquinas.

You've given a definition of motion, but it's still the physical definition of motion. Remember, Aquinas wrote long before Newton and his three laws of motions. He's not thinking like a physicist. He's thinking like an Aristotlean metaphysician.

[Indy]

Agreed. So as I get it, Aristotle looked at motion more like an "everything is in a constant state of change," be it change of size, temperature, color, or location; or change from the "potential" state of something to its "actual" state, such as a larva becoming a moth. The idea being, something is causing all this motion/change/flux, and that thing must itself be unmoved, otherwise it would be just another cog in the Big Matrix of Things In Flux. So:

1. Am I giving a somewhat fair representation in your view?
2. If so, can you restate in the context of our modern-day worldview how this proves a "prime mover," so I get where you're coming from?
3. If not, can you clear it up for me?

[robertb]

Aquinas's first premise is that some things are in motion.

This is a false premise, as all things are in motion. Of course Aristotle probably was not aware of this bit of information.

[Chrawnus]

Aquinas's first premise is that some things are in motion.

This is a false premise, as all things are in motion. Of course Aristotle probably was not aware of this bit of information.

Not that this particular piece of information (i.e all things*, as opposed to only some things, are in motion) weakens the argument in any discernable way. In fact, Aquinas argument, if it works, works whether the premise is "some things are in motion", or the stronger premise "all things are in motion"

*By "all things" I'm assuming you mean all things in the universe.

[robertb]

Not that this particular piece of information (i.e all things*, as opposed to only some things, are in motion) weakens the argument in any discernable way. In fact, Aquinas argument, if it works, works whether the premise is "some things are in motion", or the stronger premise "all things are in motion"

*By "all things" I'm assuming you mean all things in the universe.

No, I mean simply all things, as in it is impossible for anything to not be in motion. Do you have any example of something not in, or was not in the past, in motion that you would wish to posit?

[robertb]

Impossible may be a bit strong, let's say unevidenced and seemingly highly improbable, instead.

[Chrawnus]

No, I mean simply all things, as in it is impossible for anything to not be in motion. Do you have any example of something not in, or was not in the past, in motion that you would wish to posit?

Re the bolded: Really? How do you figure?

That we have no experience of anything not in motion does not mean that it is impossible. It seems to me like you're making conclusions that are not justified.. Even if we could conclude with 100% certainty that there has never been anything that is not in motion it does not follow from that that it is impossible for anything not to be in motion.

And when you say all things, are you talking only about material objects, or would you allow, for the sake of the discussion, the possibility of objects that are not material?

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Agreed. So as I get it, Aristotle looked at motion more like an "everything is in a constant state of change," be it change of size, temperature, color, or location; or change from the "potential" state of something to its "actual" state, such as a larva becoming a moth. The idea being, something is causing all this motion/change/flux, and that thing must itself be unmoved, otherwise it would be just another cog in the Big Matrix of Things In Flux. So:

1. Am I giving a somewhat fair representation in your view?

Close. I notice you are speaking of material things. Aquinas believed in angels and believed they were in motion. How do you think an immaterial thing can be in motion?

2. If so, can you restate in the context of our modern-day worldview how this proves a "prime mover," so I get where you're coming from?
3. If not, can you clear it up for me?

I'll leave some of part 1 for you, but yes. There is a prime mover.