Announcement

Collapse

Deeper Waters Forum Guidelines

Notice – The ministries featured in this section of TheologyWeb are guests of this site and in some cases not bargaining for the rough and tumble world of debate forums, though sometimes they are. Additionally, this area is frequented and highlighted for guests who also very often are not acclimated to debate fora. As such, the rules of conduct here will be more strict than in the general forum. This will be something within the discretion of the Moderators and the Ministry Representative, but we simply ask that you conduct yourselves in a manner considerate of the fact that these ministries are our invited guests. You can always feel free to start a related thread in general forum without such extra restrictions. Thank you.

Deeper Waters is founded on the belief that the Christian community has long been in the shallow end of Christianity while there are treasures of the deep waiting to be discovered. Too many in the shallow end are not prepared when they go out beyond those waters and are quickly devoured by sharks. We wish to aid Christians to equip them to navigate the deeper waters of the ocean of truth and come up with treasure in the end.

We also wish to give special aid to those often neglected, that is, the disabled community. This is especially so since our founders are both on the autism spectrum and have a special desire to reach those on that spectrum. While they are a special emphasis, we seek to help others with any disability realize that God can use them and that they are as the Psalmist says, fearfully and wonderfully made.

General TheologyWeb forum rules: here.
See more
See less

Rationality Rules On The Unmoved Mover

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Rationality Rules On The Unmoved Mover

    Is the Unmoved Mover debunked or is Rationality Rules?

    The link can be found here.

    -----

    Is the unmoved mover a bad argument? Let's plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

    I have been dialoguing with an atheist via text message a local pastor told me about. Last night, we were talking about Aquinas's argument for the unmoved mover. He wanted to send me a video arguing against it to get my thoughts. He told me the video was by someone who went by "Rationality Rules." I have noticed that so many people who identify themselves by rationality or reason or logic often honor the idea with their lips, but their heads are far from it. I asked him to send it so I could see it. It can be found here.

    Fortunately, it comes with a long description to show many of the main points. I found it amusing that towards the start we have Aquinas and Peter Kreeft both having dunce hats put on their heads. Yes. Aquinas, one of the greatest minds in Western civilization should have a dunce cap on. It's amazing the arrogance that these guys have.

    Anyway, RR says he's not going to deal with Aquinas's, but Kreeft's, because, you know, the arguments are basically the same.

    No, they're not.

    But hey, apparently it would be too hard to, you know, go and look online and actually read the original argument and actually work to understand it and see what it's really arguing. Nope. Just go for someone you think is giving the argument. Kreeft is a wonderful philosopher, but here he is also speaking for laymen and not giving the argument in its full sophistication. Unfortunately, I think he also gets it wrong, but let's see what is said.

    Anyway, this is how RR sums up the argument syllogistically.

    • Everything that exists is in motion.

    • Everything in motion is caused to be in motion by something else.

    • Something must’ve existed without a cause.

    • We call this first-cause (or unmoved mover) god.

    • Therefore, god exists.

    This isn't the argument.

    For one thing, we have to ask what is motion. Motion is not just movement, but movement is a type of motion. All movement is motion but not all motion is movement, at least in the physical sense. We know this because Aquinas would talk about movement in angels and angels are not physical. Your atheist friend can say he doesn't believe in angels. Irrelevant. Aquinas does and Aquinas knows they are not physical so his argument is not limited to the physical.

    What is being talked about is potential becoming actuality. Potential is the capacity for change that something has. Actuality is the way that it is. I am sitting right now as I type this. I have the potential to stand, kneel, lie down, jump, etc. If I do any of those, such as stand, then I am actualized my potential to stand and from there, I have the potential again to sit.

    This is indeed caused in some respect by another. I do something because I want something outside of myself, which is what would be called The Good. My will is driven towards this. Every one of us desires what we think of as The Good. We can disagree on what we think The Good is, but all of us do want it and when we do something, we are doing it for something we perceive to be a good.

    Aquinas is also talking about objects that have no will. A hand moves a stick which moves a rock which moves a leaf. Remove any piece of the chain and the leaf doesn't move.

    So what is the cause of this change? Aquinas says we have to find what it is to avoid an infinite regress. What kind of regress is he talking about? It's either per accidens or per se. In the former, suppose mine and Allie's parents both die suddenly. Could we still have children together? Absolutely. All things being equal, there is nothing about our reproduction that is hindered or helped by our parents being alive. That is irrelevant.

    Now consider a chain that's more per se. Each event is dependent on what came before it. Consider a Rube Goldberg machine. That is what it is like. This is the point of Aquinas. This means that everything in the chain is being used as an instrument, but if there are secondary causes, there must be a primary cause. The chain has to find its origin somewhere.

    Note that this is also not saying it has to start there chronologically, as the universe being eternal is at this point irrelevant to Aquinas. It's saying that there must be some great source, such as a gear that all the other gears have to move around and if the big gear stops, the little ones do as well. For Aquinas though, this place where the buck stops must be unmoved itself. If it is not, then it is part of the chain and the chain still needs to be explained.

    If we see anything that is in motion, then we need to explain that. That would include the universe because I think it's quite uncontroversial to say the universe undergoes change. We can all agree to that one. What needs to be at the root is something unchanging in its nature.

    RR says the first flaw with this argument is that it does not prove that Christianity is true.

    It would not prove that this Unmoved Mover still exists, that it’s a being, that it’s conscious, or that it impregnated a virgin, in order to sacrifice itself to itself so that it could forgive you for your ancestors’ actions… or in other words, it would not prove that Kreeft’s very specific interpretation of the Christianity is true.

    This is the common silly objection that so many atheists have. You have not proven that this God is the Christian God, therefore the argument fails. Yes. What a great rejoinder, except the argument was never meant to prove the Christian God. Aquinas knew this. Every defender of the argument knows it. Aquinas could use this argument, but so could the Jewish philosopher Moses Maimonides. So could the Muslim philosopher Avicenna. Put these three in a room together and they will not dispute this argument. They will agree to it. That's when the disputes start. Who is this mover?

    Also, to say that it doesn't show the mover still exists is just fallacious because once Aquinas establishes God, he goes on to establish things that can be known about God from reason and natural theology and that includes His eternality and immutability among other things. People who argue against the argument like this are just intellectually lazy. Of course, we knew that when we saw the bad representation of the Trinity anyway.

    The second fallacy is that of special pleading. Something must have existed without a cause. That's not the argument though. It's that something must have existed that is not in motion like everything else is. God is not moved by anything else. He moves all other things. Aquinas does say why as well. Special Pleading fails.

    The last two objections deal with the Big Bang Theory. Unfortunately for RR, these are irrelevant. Aquinas's argument is not about the origins of the universe. The Big Bang Theory could be disproven tomorrow and Aquinas would be unfazed. The universe could be shown to be eternal and Aquinas will still be standing. Aquinas would ask why you're talking about all this stuff about how the universe came to be when his argument says nothing about that.

    In conclusion, it will be good when RR deals with the real argument. If he wants to do so, I suggest for a good understanding he consider something like reading Edward Feser. Feser's "Aquinas" would be a great introduction for him. As it stands, RR has dealt with a straw man and the dunce cap needs to be removed and put on the head of the rightful owner.

    In Christ,
    Nick Peters

  • #2
    So when are you going to met up with deflating atheism? Deflating also deals with guys like rationality rules. Kreeft is brilliant. He wrote a summary of the summa. Personally i havent read aquianas. I think Lewis is the equivalent to me of aquianas for you.
    sigpic

    Comment


    • #3
      Motion as we know is relative.

      In order to have an unmovable anything, there would have to be an infinite and all objects which move relative to it, that infinite, also do not move relative to it, that infinite. Yes, both things would have to be true at the same time. Remember it is infinite and unmovable. It remains stationary to all moving objects. Kind of like the speed of light is always the same to all frames of motion. What changes is the relative energies to the moving objects, not the speed of light.

      Also take note:

      Existence does not need the proof in the argument, God does.

      Uncaused existence needs no God.
      . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

      . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

      Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

      Comment


      • #4
        We call this God … or the everlasting committee of universe builders … or whatever you fancy.

        Being everlasting the God cannot help but wonder where it came from and having nobody to consult on the matter it has been driven to perpetual insanity.
        “I think God, in creating man, somewhat overestimated his ability.” ― Oscar Wilde
        “And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence” ― Bertrand Russell
        “not all there” - you know who you are

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by firstfloor View Post
          We call this God … or the everlasting committee of universe builders … or whatever you fancy.

          Being everlasting the God cannot help but wonder where it came from and having nobody to consult on the matter it has been driven to perpetual insanity.
          God is the original atheist, He has no God.
          . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

          . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

          Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

          Comment

          Related Threads

          Collapse

          Topics Statistics Last Post
          Started by Apologiaphoenix, 03-15-2024, 10:19 PM
          3 responses
          34 views
          1 like
          Last Post Mountain Man  
          Started by Apologiaphoenix, 03-13-2024, 10:13 PM
          2 responses
          23 views
          0 likes
          Last Post Apologiaphoenix  
          Started by Apologiaphoenix, 03-12-2024, 09:36 PM
          1 response
          21 views
          0 likes
          Last Post rogue06
          by rogue06
           
          Started by Apologiaphoenix, 03-11-2024, 10:19 PM
          0 responses
          22 views
          2 likes
          Last Post Apologiaphoenix  
          Started by Apologiaphoenix, 03-08-2024, 11:59 AM
          2 responses
          38 views
          0 likes
          Last Post Apologiaphoenix  
          Working...
          X