Christianity in a nutshell

dmiclock
Theist
dmiclock's picture
Posts: 122
Joined: 2006-12-11
User is offlineOffline
Christianity in a nutshell

Hello All,

I wanted to thank you all for the opportunity to partake in some of the discussions recently, and I would be remiss if I didn't take an opportunity to spread God's Word. So I ask you to please lend me your eyes and your mind for just a few minutes and read below:

God created this universe and everything in it, including each one of us. Because He wanted to, and He could.

We were created with free will, a conscience that convicts us, and the law written on each of our hearts.

We were created to seek Him and reach out for Him - though He is not far from any of us.

Sin entered the world via our free will, and as such so did death, dissease, aging, etc..

God hates sin.

God is Just, and as such must punish those who break His laws.

God Loves all of us, even though we're all sinners.

When we choose to sin, we reject God and show contempt for all He has given us.

God calls us to repent from our sins and put our trust in Him. This means more and more, we strive to sin less and less.
As a result we become better people, not perfect people.

Jesus came to preach the Gospel, and take the punishment that each one of us deserves for our sins.
The wages of sin is death.

Christianity is different in the respect that all other religions are "Work Righteous" meaning that the more good things one does, the better the chances he/she goes to heaven. We get heaven not because we're good people, but because we're wretched sinners who accept the fact that our sins are paid in full for through the blood of Jesus.

It may not make sense to yo, and you may not like it, but....
Have a Merry Christmas.

All the ways of the Lord are loving and faithful for those who keep the demands of His covenant.


Pikachu
Pikachu's picture
Posts: 181
Joined: 2006-08-19
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote:I call it

triften
Silver Member
triften's picture
Posts: 591
Joined: 2007-01-01
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote: But

StMichael wrote:

But every body that moves some thing is itself moved while moving it. Therefore, all these infinite bodies are moved when moving some thing. But one of them, being finite, is moved in a finite time. Therefore, all these infinites are moved in a finite time.

Assumptions that appear to me:

1) That an object must be acted upon in a finite time. This presupposes a universe with a beginning. If the universe has a beginning, then two bodies could have had gravitational interaction for as long as the universe existed. If the universe has no beginning, then two bodies could interact for an infinite amount of time.

2) That all things in a chain of movement interact simultaneously. Did I graduate college at the same time I was born? No. I was born, about 21 years went by (with lots of events in between), then I graduated. If force is imparted against something (on our imaginary, frictionless plane from physics class) it continues moving _after_ force is imparted upon it and can interact with other bodies some time after it started moving.

Or are you are trying to multiply an infinity by a non-infinite value and get a non-infinite result? In which case you are trying to redefine infinity. (To paraphrase: "If we have an inifinite number of dominoes in a line, then since each one has finite length, the whole line must have a finite length." )

-Triften


Pikachu
Pikachu's picture
Posts: 181
Joined: 2006-08-19
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote:The reason

StMichael wrote:
The reason we cannot proceed infinitely in movers can be proven three ways:

[1] If among movers and things moved we proceed to infinity, all these things must be bodies - coporeal entities. But every body that moves some thing is itself moved while moving it. Therefore, all these infinite bodies are moved when moving some thing. But one of them, being finite, is moved in a finite time. Therefore, all these infinites are moved in a finite time. This, however, is a contradiction. Hence, it is impossible that an actual infinity of movers can exist.

[1.a] Furthermore, it is impossible for an infinite to move in a finite time. This is because the moved and the thing moved must exist simultaneously. But bodies cannot be simultaneous except by continuity or congruity. Now, as has been proven, all these movers and things moved are bodies and thus most constitute a single congruity or continuity as a sort of single mobile. In this way, one infinite is moved in finite time. This, however, is impossible.

[2] If there is a series of ordered motions, where a mover moves a moved thing, and so on, it is necessarily a fact that if one removes the first motion, the subsequent motion ceases. This is because the first motion is the cause of motion in the others. If the order of causation was infinite, it possesses no first mover. Hence, no subsequent motion can exist.

[3] That which is in motion is only moved in so far as something moves it. Thus, a log is potentially hot but not actually so until it is set on fire. But, if there were no first mover, all things would be merely instrumental movers. They will thence be moved movers and there will be no motion because there is no first mover. Hence, no motion would exist, which is impossible.

All of these arguments are predicated on a view of physics that is 400 years out of date.

[1] There doesn't need to be "mover" for something to move. The laws of physics say that something can be in motion for ever.

[1a] "one infinite is moved in finite time. This, however, is impossible." Not clear what this means, or why it's impossible.

[2] Assumes there is a first cause. Logical fallacy. Assumes that for something to be in motion requires a mover. Outdated physics.

[3] Outdated physics. If you move something, it keeps on moving. If it was in motion always, it will always be in motion unless acted on by an outside force (Newton's Laws of motion). No contradiction here. Also, assumes existence of first mover (logical fallacy).

StMichael wrote:
The problem in your argument is that you're arguing against a straw man. I never argue that everything requires a cause.
Specifically you seem to be claiming that everything in motion must be moved by something else. If I am misrepresenting your claim then you have my apologies. Yet you then claim that your god moves without being moved. Gravity is an "unmoved mover", as are the other basic nonkinetic forces. If everything must be moved by something else then your god (if it moves) must be moved by something else. Anything else is special pleading.
StMichael wrote:
It is not just merely improbable, but logically impossible to posit an infinite regress of motion and movers. In which case, it cannot happen.
This is an unsupported assertion.
StMichael wrote:
Even if it had, it still requires that an unmoved mover was needed to sustain the universe's motion in existence.
This is also an unsupported assertion.
StMichael wrote:
This is a childish response and lacks depth. God exists outside of time, so the category does not apply to Him.
Well my god, the "Great Pikachu" not only created your god but he sends disbelievers to a hell 17 times more horrible than the one Yahweh sends people he doesn't like to. Nyah.

For adults to continue to believe in magical creatures such as Santa Claus, fairies, unicorns, angels and gods exist seems childish to me.  My response was neither childish nor does it lack "depth".  On the contrary it is quite profound:  The proposition that time cannot be "created" is a very sound argument.  For time to be created there must be a time when time does not exist followed by a time when time does exist.  "Outside of time" has no meaning.

You appeal to logic but when logic obviously shows your god to be every bit as rational as Santa Claus you invoke magic so Santa can get to every good little child's home in one 24 hour period and use impossibly small chimneys for entrance and egress Yahweh can create time when there is no time for Yahweh to decide to create time.

StMichael wrote:
Show me why my logic is flawed. Where specifically my argument violates logic.
See above in this post. Your argument uses "special pleading" and unsupported assertions where valid premises should be. A valid logical argument includes a sound argument and valid premises, neither of which yours includes.

Sorry, in this last section I responded to your quote of someone else. I decided to leave my response as I believe it actually does address the question raised. I've snipped everything else below because although you "called me out" in the opening of the quoted post you included several quotes from other individuals.

StMichael wrote:
P2: The more perfect life is, the more perfectly a thing moves itself.
What the hell does this even mean, other than a blatant start with a conclusion and work your way backward attempt? 

Are you talking about a Cockroach, or Cheetah, or Spider, or AI Robot, what?

StMichael wrote:
P3: Intellectual life is a self-motion that determines the mover's end.
What end? Death? To get a glass of water? And again, why wouldn't this apply to the above animals (and AI robot) all of which employ "self-motion" that "determines the mover's end," whatever the hell that is?

Do coherency and logical consistency mean nothing to you?

StMichael wrote:
C1: The most perfect life would be an intellectual life that thinks its own substance as an end.
How the hell did you get to "thinks its own substance" from anything in your premises? Define perfection.

That's it. You're forbidden from ever attempting to use logic again. You've lost your logic priviledge due to flagrant abuse and profound incoherency.

StMichael wrote:
God is outside time.
And that means he can't think or act.
StMichael wrote:
This is because the first motion is the cause of motion in the others.
What's with the Aristotelian physics? Do you realise that Newton rendered the whole motion causal paradigm obsolete when he expressed motion [as velocity and acceleration] in relation to force?
StMichael wrote:
If the order of causation was infinite, it possesses no first mover. Hence, no subsequent motion can exist.
Only if you subscribe to Aristotelian physics, which is an archaic way of looking at the world.  The notion that motion is like a train, where one car is claimed to  cause motion of the next, is silly.  The whole train moves as a unit [infinite of finite], just as the whole universe moves unilaterally as space-time.  Also where does gravitation fit into your motion causes other motions model?  Are gravitation fields motion as well?  Is the apple in my hand moved by another motion when I let it go, or am I merely releasing its potential kinetic energy created by gravitational force on the object?

As for the issue of infinity, even if we accepted your First Cause argument, the "first cause" is not necessarily the beginning cause, because in a finite regression we can never reach the limit between each unit.  The closer we get, the smaller the regressive unit e.g. ... 1.3, 1.2, 1.1, 1, 0.9, 0.8, 0.7... ad infinitum.  Also, if you claim zero means "nothing", thus is not a cause.  That would mean the first motion is 0.000...[ad infinitum of zeros]...00001, which subsequently means you do not have a first motion, because you can never reach the limit to say what that the first motion is.  Unless you say the first motion is infinity, which contradicts your claim [infinite regression is impossible], because each motion has an infinite regression between itself and the next.

StMichael wrote:
Get over it.
Strong atheism is the only salvation, it saves you from original sin, sins against godlessness, and it saves your rational mind from an infection known as "god" or "religion" with a god". You still need to be saved from other kinds of damages, though, like anybody else. Though you are probably better off if you use your rational mind to solve those problems. Laughing out loud

God had no time to create time.


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
I see no reason why you

I see no reason why you answered my posts at least three times, repeating yourself throughout. It was totally and utterly unnecessary. Don’t do it again.

 

Quote:

StMichael wrote:

I call it God because it can be proven to be such, not because it has already been proven such. However, if that is what you mean, there was no equivocation because I was not trying to prove anything from the term that I used. I merely called it God, which I think is really even fair at this stage assuming that by "God" we mean the "cause of all things."

Put simply, the problem is what causes the root inequalities or lack of smoothness in the universe. Once inequality exists the normal laws of motion would account for all of the described phenomena. Your attempt at solving this problem by invoking logic or God is doomed to fail precisely because all reasoning is doomed to introduce as part of its reasoning an inequality in any system that is used to describe the initial conditions of the universe. An explanation that does not entail as part of its being inequality is only capable of generating symmetrical or smooth existence - probably meaning nothing.

I have no idea what you mean when referring to the smoothness or irregularity in the universe, and I don’t think the distinction is cogent. And your phrase, “invoking logic or God” would seem to easily negate your own use of logical reasoning.

Quote:

If I imagine that we are part of a computer and that the initial conditions are set by the controller, I have invoked a solution which has as part of its operation an inequality - this is why it is a satisfactory explanation as to how this universe could exist but not a satisfactory explanation as to how the inequality itself could exist.

OK, but the inequality is necessary because there is NOT nothing now.

Quote:

StMichael wrote:

The reason we cannot proceed infinitely in movers can be proven three ways:

[1] If among movers and things moved we proceed to infinity, all these things must be bodies - coporeal entities. But every body that moves some thing is itself moved while moving it. Therefore, all these infinite bodies are moved when moving some thing. But one of them, being finite, is moved in a finite time. Therefore, all these infinites are moved in a finite time. This, however, is a contradiction.

Could not each mover move in half the time of the next?
If the last mover moves in 1 unit of time the one before in 1/2 unit etc., 1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 ... = 2.
An infinite number of movers can move in 2 units of time.

This has nothing to do with it. It is proving the motion of one impacting the motion of the others, not an infinite series of temporal movements. The infinite cannot move in a temporal limit like this. It would take an infinite time for an infinite series, moving, to move (they would constantly be in motion).

Quote:

Can I spin a disc! According to you I can't because it is true that each segment of disc is set into revolutionary motion by each previous segment of disc in an infinite regress. Yet the disc spins nonetheless.

It is not an infinite regress. You are the motive force behind the spinning of the disc.

Quote:
My spinning the disc explains why the disc is spinning but it does not explain why I should be able to spin the disc, and hence fails to explain motion!

No it doesn’t. It gives maybe an incomplete explanation of motion, but it does give us some information. Namely, that YOU are the efficient cause of the movement of the disc.

Quote:

As for mover and the moving existing simultaneously. In any predicated chain of events where one act must subsequently leads to another act necessarily, then every part of the system that precedes the act can be described as the mover necessarily, regardless of its existence at any prior point in time.

I don’t see what this is supposed to prove. It seems to agree with my position, but the language is so confused I don’t know what to make of it.

Quote:

Why not just say there are things move, can be moved and can move other things. But of course, you leave out energy entirely. What about energy?

Energy in the consideration is movement itself.

Quote:

Can you support the contention that an actual infinity of movers can't exist? If you can, please do.

I already did. If there is no first mover, the intermediate and final motion ceases to exist. Hence, there is required a first mover.

Quote:

Why is it impossible for an infinity to move in a finite time?

An infinity that must be moving infinitely cannot move in a finite time. It would require that I move an infinite number of bodies, which is impossible.

Quote:
What about energy, its not a body and yet it can move things. Even mover things that are moving. Or Gravity, which as far as we know is just a potential, neither energy nor matter. Which matters not because matter is just a special form of energy, which you don't address at all.

Energy is the motion of the thing itself.

Quote:

StMichael wrote:

[2] If there is a series of ordered motions, where a mover moves a moved thing, and so on, it is necessarily a fact that if one removes the first motion, the subsequent motion ceases. This is because the first motion is the cause of motion in the others. If the order of causation was infinite, it possesses no first mover. Hence, no subsequent motion can exist.

StMichael wrote:

[3] That which is in motion is only moved in so far as something moves it. Thus, a log is potentially hot but not actually so until it is set on fire. But, if there were no first mover, all things would be merely instrumental movers. They will thence be moved movers and there will be no motion because there is no first mover. Hence, no motion would exist, which is impossible.

Perhaps, perhaps not, maybe it was moving to begin with. Sort of depends on whose frame of reference is being used. To a moving body, it appears motionless and everything else is moving.
Actually, its not the log that is on fire, its the gases that express from the log that are burning and making the log hot which expresses the gases.
What about the unmoved movers who meet up with the moving unmovers? And what about energy and when the unstoppable force meets the unmovable object?

The last two sentences make no sense at all. Also, things cannot always have been in motion without requiring a Prime Mover, because an intermediate and final motion cannot exist without the first mover.

Quote:

StMichael wrote:

P1: "To be alive" is to be able to move oneself, in some manner of speaking.

Plants are alive. They generally don't move themselves.

They do. They grow and “eat.”

Quote:

StMichael wrote:

P2: The more perfect life is, the more perfectly a thing moves itself.

You're assuming P1, among other things, so no.

Quote:

StMichael wrote:

P4: But God is pure act and His own principle of motion - moving Himself toward Himself as an end.

This is just gibberish. You may as well say that Peyton Manning is pure act and His own principle of motion.

God is pure act and the cause of all things. He is the principle of motion of all things and He tends toward Himself perfectly as His end.

Quote:

This whole argument is gibberish again. You're defining "God" into existence with confusion.

How am I defining God into existence?

Quote:
If I accept that we can't define perfection (which is bullshit) then how can you possibly know that your god is perfect?

Why can’t we define a perfection? It is more perfect to have some positive quality than not to have it. God is purely act, and thus must possess all perfection above all other existing things.

 

Quote:
By the way, do you always get upset when people ask logical questions?

No. But your questions aren’t cogent at all.

Quote:

StMichael wrote:

P1: "To be alive" is to be able to move oneself, in some manner of speaking.

So a robot is alive?

No, because it is not the efficient cause of its own motion.

Quote:

StMichael wrote:

P2: The more perfect life is, the more perfectly a thing moves itself.

Define "perfect", and after you've done that, prove this statement.

To possess a positive quality. As in “more complete” possession.

The more complete life is, the more complete its self-movement.

Quote:

If we can not define what god is, why even talk about god? There's no point. If it's unknowable it might as well not exist.

God is unknowable in Himself, but not as we can know Him by His effects.

Quote:

Unless of course you have any evidence for your god to share?

Oh                 my               gosh. We have been talking about this the entire time.

Quote:

StMichael wrote:

P1: "To be alive" is to be able to move oneself, in some manner of speaking.

Explain this to a quadriplegic. Blink once if you understand, blink twice if you don't...

Thus, they move themselves. They are the principle of their own growth, eating, eye movement, thoughts, ect.

Quote:

Perfection is God's end.

That's nothing new here. We all already know since God's begining He's been anything but perfect, I say it'll take about 6000 years or more for man to rewrite, think and invent the perfect God.

Right now God has all this knowledge, but still doesn't learn anything.

This statement is totally and utterly unjustified. You just assert your own opinion.

Quote:

I've read this theory in so many threads you've posted in and I haven't once seen a reasonable argument to support it. You assume that god is an unmoved mover and yet state that the universe can not be the cause of it's own initial movement (i.e. the Big Bang). This is a First Cause argument and is bunk.

Yes, it is a sort of First Cause argument. But I don’t see how something can be the cause of its own movement in the same way and in the same respect.

Quote:

All of your arguments amount to "no matter what finite-number of things you add up, you never reach infinity", and you can't even see the error.

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. Do you think that I think Zeno’s paradox is correct? And, in matter of fact, you cannot merely add finite beings to reach infinity.

Quote:

God is something (some people might claim). Something can not lift itself up by its own bootstraps into existence, you assert.

I never argued this second premise. I would advocate in the course of argument that there is something that is the cause of existences without a prior cause. But I have not yet been at all arguing for a first efficient cause, but for a Prime Mover. But the Prime Mover does not move itself. So this doesn’t apply.

Quote:

Please explain to me what this means. It reads like english, but I'm not getting any information out of it. Nice and slow please.

If A = not 0, then A cannot equal ~A 

Quote:

But couldn't there be also a 'moved non-mover' and couldn't we call him Jesus. Where does your 'unmoved mover' reside, does he have an angel named Gabriel that moved?

I have no idea what you are getting at. Your language is so confused it no longer makes sense.

Quote:

Motion itself needs no mover, God is not motion, God is an emotion...

?

Quote:

StMichael wrote:

The universe is moving and changing and hence cannot be the ultimate source of that motion..

This is what's known as optical illusion...

?

Quote:

StMichael wrote:

Only an unmoved mover can satisfy.

http://students.washington.edu/alefevre/snickers.jpg

Your imperfect perfection of God therefore is an illusion and an end unto itself...

?

Quote:
Umm, that was a Snickers bar. And if god is omnipresent then he is in that Snickers bar, he IS that Snickers bar.

?

Quote:

Jokes aside StMichael, you are assuming that God is an unmoved mover. You have shown no evidence or proof that can back up your argument….

I am showing that an unmoved mover exists. It must exist for things to exist now, otherwise they would not be in motion (which they obviously are).

Quote:

You really have an incredible hard-on for these First Mover threads. Do you think that if you create enough of them, the argument will become true?

This is why I chose not to respond to your threads before. You just sit around, throwing your opinions in the air and dismissing my arguments without considering them. On top of that, you changed your positions within the same sentence in previous posts. One more try. If you don’t want to play by the rules, I don’t see how I can talk to you as there cannot be a way to do so.

 

Quote:

StMichael wrote:

That god is the unmoved mover.

The universe cannot be its own source of motion, as nothing can be self-moved.

P1) Nothing can be self-moved.
P2) God is self-moved.
C: God is Nothing.

That was easy.

Except that God is not self-moved.

God is unmoved.

Quote:
All of these arguments are predicated on a view of physics that is 400 years out of date.

[1] There doesn't need to be "mover" for something to move. The laws of physics say that something can be in motion for ever.

But it requires an initial mover. Physics is predicated on this.

Quote:

[1a] "one infinite is moved in finite time. This, however, is impossible." Not clear what this means, or why it's impossible.

How can you move an infinite number of bodies in a finite time? An infinite number of bodies would require an infinite amount of motion in an infinite time.

Quote:

[2] Assumes there is a first cause. Logical fallacy. Assumes that for something to be in motion requires a mover. Outdated physics.

We still understand this in physics. Why else would we inquire where, for example, comets came from if we merely postulated that they were always in motion without an origin?

Quote:

[3] Outdated physics. If you move something, it keeps on moving. If it was in motion always, it will always be in motion unless acted on by an outside force (Newton's Laws of motion). No contradiction here.

Still requires a first mover. Notice: “If you move something…” is required before you can postulate inertial forces.

 

Quote:
Gravity is an "unmoved mover", as are the other basic nonkinetic forces.

Gravity is not an unmoved mover. Gravity is the motion of bodies. It is a body acting on another body. It is not an independent agent.

Quote:

 If everything must be moved by something else then your god (if it moves) must be moved by something else. Anything else is special pleading.

Only what is in motion need be moved. God is not in motion, otherwise there could be no cause of motion.

Quote:

StMichael wrote:

It is not just merely improbable, but logically impossible to posit an infinite regress of motion and movers. In which case, it cannot happen.

This is an unsupported assertion.

I don’t need to explain this again as I have already done this multiple times in my post.

Quote:

StMichael wrote:

Even if it had, it still requires that an unmoved mover was needed to sustain the universe's motion in existence.

This is also an unsupported assertion.

The unmoved mover is the cause of existence, as subsistent existence itself (pure act). Other things move, or exist, or have any perfection at all, only because they share in the movement or being of the Prime Mover.

Quote:

For time to be created there must be a time when time does not exist followed by a time when time does exist.  "Outside of time" has no meaning.

No there does not. Why does the phrase “outside of time” make no sense to you? Eternity in God is having all things be eternally present to Him. It is a lack of movement through time. When God creates motion in things, He creates time (the motion of bodies determines time – special relativity).

Quote:
Yahweh can create time when there is no time for Yahweh to decide to create time.

God acts in eternity, not in time. Nor does He need to. He creates all things from eternity. There is no contradiction at all.

Quote:

StMichael wrote:

P2: The more perfect life is, the more perfectly a thing moves itself.

What the hell does this even mean, other than a blatant start with a conclusion and work your way backward attempt? 

I don’t understand how this works backward from my conclusion.

Quote:

Are you talking about a Cockroach, or Cheetah, or Spider, or AI Robot, what?

All life contains in its nature the principle of its own movement. It has no external principle of movment. So, everything living (animals, plants, humans, angels, God), not including robots.

Quote:

StMichael wrote:

P3: Intellectual life is a self-motion that determines the mover's end. [

What end? Death? To get a glass of water?

 

To get a glass of water is a movement toward an end that was determined by the actor, not for example by gravity.

Quote:

… why wouldn't this apply to the above animals (and AI robot) all of which employ "self-motion" that "determines the mover's end," whatever the hell that is?

An animal is not intelligent in determining its own ends. Its following of ends comes from instinct and so forth.

Quote:

StMichael wrote:

C1: The most perfect life would be an intellectual life that thinks its own substance as an end.

How the hell did you get to "thinks its own substance" from anything in your premises?

The motion toward a determined end is what intellectual thinking is. Moving without external force, or by one’s own nature is what it is to be alive. The most perfect intellectual life acts by virtue of itself, thinking itself as an end.

Quote:

StMichael wrote:

God is outside time.

And that means he can't think or act.

There is no contradiction to say that God can know or act in eternity.

Quote:

StMichael wrote:

This is because the first motion is the cause of motion in the others.

What's with the Aristotelian physics? Do you realise that Newton rendered the whole motion causal paradigm obsolete when he expressed motion [as velocity and acceleration] in relation to force?

Newton did not negate the argument. If you want to maintain that, you have to prove it.

Quote:

StMichael wrote:

If the order of causation was infinite, it possesses no first mover. Hence, no subsequent motion can exist.

Only if you subscribe to Aristotelian physics, which is an archaic way of looking at the world.  The notion that motion is like a train, where one car is claimed to  cause motion of the next, is silly.  The whole train moves as a unit [infinite of finite], just as the whole universe moves unilaterally as space-time. 

Aristotle saw that this could happen. Nothing new there.

Quote:

Also where does gravitation fit into your motion causes other motions model?  Are gravitation fields motion as well?  [/;quote]

Gravity is the acting of one body on another.

Quote:

As for the issue of infinity, even if we accepted your First Cause argument, the "first cause" is not necessarily the beginning cause, because in a finite regression we can never reach the limit between each unit.  The closer we get, the smaller the regressive unit e.g. ... 1.3, 1.2, 1.1, 1, 0.9, 0.8, 0.7... ad infinitum.  Also, if you claim zero means "nothing", thus is not a cause.  That would mean the first motion is 0.000...[ad infinitum of zeros]...00001, which subsequently means you do not have a first motion, because you can never reach the limit to say what that the first motion is.  Unless you say the first motion is infinity, which contradicts your claim [infinite regression is impossible], because each motion has an infinite regression between itself and the next.

But the infinite divisibility of secondary causes is not the issue. The problem is that a finite series of integers must exist, of which the first is 0, for instance.

Quote:

1) That an object must be acted upon in a finite time. This presupposes a universe with a beginning. If the universe has a beginning, then two bodies could have had gravitational interaction for as long as the universe existed. If the universe has no beginning, then two bodies could interact for an infinite amount of time.

An finite object, such as a rock, must be acted upon in a finite time. If there were infinite objects along with this particular finite rock, I would be moving the infinite objects (moving in an infinite time) in a finite time.

Quote:

2) That all things in a chain of movement interact simultaneously. Did I graduate college at the same time I was born? No. I was born, about 21 years went by (with lots of events in between), then I graduated. If force is imparted against something (on our imaginary, frictionless plane from physics class) it continues moving _after_ force is imparted upon it and can interact with other bodies some time after it started moving.

I never assume the movement acts simultaneously.

Quote:

Or are you are trying to multiply an infinity by a non-infinite value and get a non-infinite result? In which case you are trying to redefine infinity. (To paraphrase: "If we have an inifinite number of dominoes in a line, then since each one has finite length, the whole line must have a finite length." )

I think this could be more accurately ascribed to my opponents. This is the result of positing an actual infinite regress in movers.

 

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


triften
Silver Member
triften's picture
Posts: 591
Joined: 2007-01-01
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote: Triften

StMichael wrote:

Triften wrote:

1) That an object must be acted upon in a finite time. This presupposes a universe with a beginning. If the universe has a beginning, then two bodies could have had gravitational interaction for as long as the universe existed. If the universe has no beginning, then two bodies could interact for an infinite amount of time.

An finite object, such as a rock, must be acted upon in a finite time. If there were infinite objects along with this particular finite rock, I would be moving the infinite objects (moving in an infinite time) in a finite time.

Triften wrote:

Or are you are trying to multiply an infinity by a non-infinite value and get a non-infinite result? In which case you are trying to redefine infinity. (To paraphrase: "If we have an inifinite number of dominoes in a line, then since each one has finite length, the whole line must have a finite length." )

I think this could be more accurately ascribed to my opponents. This is the result of positing an actual infinite regress in movers.

Your earlier assertion was that an infinite chain of movers, acting upon each other, end up moving in a finite time. This is blatantly false. If we enumerate our objects using the positive and negative numbers (a handy inifinity to use) and the mth object interacts with the m-1th one for n seconds before it interacts with the m+1th, then the whole chain of interactions takes an infinite amount of time to play out.

-Triften

 



Pikachu
Pikachu's picture
Posts: 181
Joined: 2006-08-19
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote:I see no

StMichael wrote:
I see no reason why you answered my posts at least three times, repeating yourself throughout. It was totally and utterly unnecessary. Don’t do it again.
I make fun of his awesomeness! His smegma falls like a Colorado blizzard with many cattle starving! His feces is buried deep and creating many geothermal possibilities! His urine flows like a broad Chinese river on a summer afternoon amidst the Cherry Blossoms. His deep voice suprisingly sweet as a honey dew melon in lieu of Doritos for Super Bowl Sunday! I say these things because they emanated from a steaming heap of linguini found within my perforated bowl! Ciao mangia!
StMichael wrote:
I have no idea what you mean when referring to the smoothness or irregularity in the universe, and I don’t think the distinction is cogent. And your phrase, “invoking logic or God” would seem to easily negate your own use of logical reasoning.
you have not proven, nor explained, nor established any reasonable argument as to why God is this unmoved mover. Your new posts are simply rehashed from old posts you have written, all of which have been refuted and all refutes have been ignored by you.

This tends to be a common practice for most theists; when your superstitions are debunked, ignore them, pretend like your beliefs haven’t been shattered and continue living in ignorance.

The only thing left to do is for us to make jokes about it! :D

StMichael wrote:
Newton did not negate the argument. If you want to maintain that, you have to prove it.
I did not argue that Newton negated Aristotelian physics, I claimed he rendered it obsolete as a way of viewing motion. Therefore, whether the first cause argument is logically consistent or not is irrelevant because it is not a very good way of viewing the world. It is a tautology to claim motion is caused by motion. It is a self-referential statement that tells us nothing.

Your argument only has meaning if we accept outdated definitions of motion. And why should we do that?

StMichael wrote:
But the infinite divisibility of secondary causes is not the issue. The problem is that a finite series of integers must exist, of which the first is 0, for instance.
The infinite divisibility between causes in the first cause argument is the issue when discussing first cause motion because you can never reach zero cause or motion. An absence of motion or "no" motion cannot cause a motion, because all motion is caused by prior existing motions, in the first cause argument. Thus zero is not a first cause. So what is the first motion after zero?

The answer is infinity.

StMichael wrote:
OK, but the inequality is necessary because there is NOT nothing now.
In the unmoved mover argument you draw a frame around all of existence, put God outside that frame being the one that moves it. The problem is, you could draw a frame around 'God-existence' as well, and ask what moves that existence? If you say "nothing, because God is unmoved", then you could have let God out of the picture in the first place (KISS). In any case ,'God-existence' would remain completely unproven. You could also introduce an infinite amount of super-Gods...

But I'd go for the simple:

StMichael wrote:
This has nothing to do with it. It is proving the motion of one impacting the motion of the others, not an infinite series of temporal movements. The infinite cannot move in a temporal limit like this. It would take an infinite time for an infinite series, moving, to move (they would constantly be in motion).
What is this obsession you have with movers and movement. Its utterly bogus. Motion is a state, not a cause. It is relative to whatever frames of references are applicable and whatever other entities are relevant. Something can appear to be motionless in one frame of reference and moving in another. Have you every studied Newton? Specifically his laws of motion?

There are not movers which move and which get moved. Motion is a state for a body. It can be steady or it can be changing. If it is steady, it will continue being steady unless it is acted upon by an external force. If it is acted upon by an external force, it will accelerate and its velocity will change. This change in velocity will continue as long as the force is applied.

There is not only no reason why an object can not come into existence with an initial velocity, it has to, because even not moving is a velocity.

In any case, none of this has anything to do with infinite regressions or first causes. There may not be first causes. At this point, there isn't any way to identify such. If the current thinking is correct, its unlikely it ever will be.

You are trying to justify a supposition on your part for a supernatural being that 'causes' all this and presumably you can have relationship with so you don't have to die. It doesn't work.

You have made a statement "Infinite regression is impossible." but you have presented no rational argument for such and no rational evidence to support your non-existent rational arguments. You simply make statements, then try use those statements to support other statements which you then try to use to support other statements. You need to start making rational arguments that are supported by rational evidence.

StMichael wrote:
It is not an infinite regress. You are the motive force behind the spinning of the disc.
Surely to move something you have to actually move yourself like in the picture of the yellow box.
StMichael wrote:
No it doesn’t. It gives maybe an incomplete explanation of motion, but it does give us some information. Namely, that YOU are the efficient cause of the movement of the disc.
Therefore, If God moves, he must be in motion. Therefore, according to your logic, he must have a mover. Let's send him to the scrapheap.
StMichael wrote:
I don’t see what this is supposed to prove. It seems to agree with my position, but the language is so confused I don’t know what to make of it.
P1: "To be alive" is to be able to crap oneself, in some manner of speaking.
P2: The more perfect crap is, the more perfectly a thing moves itself.
P3: Intellectual crap is a self-motion that determines the mover's end.
C1: The most perfect crap would be an intellectual crap that thinks its own substance as an end.
--------------------------------------------------------------
P4: But crap is pure act and it’s own principle of motion - moving itself toward an end.
C2: Therefore, crap has the most perfect intellectual crap, moving itself toward it’s own substance as it’s end.

Also,

P1: Impotency is imperfection
P2: But crap, as pure act, is without potency.
C1: Therefore, crap is without imperfection and wholly possessing.
--------------------------------------------------------------
P3: Knowing is a perfection.
C2: Crap possesses the ability to know.
--------------------------------------------------------------
P4: Crap cannot depend on another for its act of knowing.
C3: Therefore, crap’s knowledge is identical with its substance.

At least MY version uses a subject that is comprehensible. Smiling

StMichael wrote:
Energy in the consideration is movement itself.
Even if god exists, the universe would not move at all, because there still is nothing it can move in relation to. So in any case the universe is the prime unmoved mover: Everything in the universe moves relative to anything else, but the universe itself does not move.
StMichael wrote:
I already did. If there is no first mover, the intermediate and final motion ceases to exist. Hence, there is required a first mover.
See above.
StMichael wrote:
An infinity that must be moving infinitely cannot move in a finite time. It would require that I move an infinite number of bodies, which is impossible.

Universe = Space + Time + Physics

Infinite (inre Physics) = Having no spatial, temporal or/and physical limitations.
Finite (inre Physics) = Having spatial, temporal or/and physical limitations.

Object = Groups of atoms or molecules observable as things. including people and organisms, which have an identity which has a longer duration than relevant events.
Event = Causal relationship between or among objects comprised of m/e.
Force = A push or a pull; a force is a form of m/e which causes events which are accelerations or decelerations of objects.

The Law of Inertia: A body having a an inertial state (condition) of (A) being at rest or (B) being in motion retains its inertial state until acted upon by a force.

Corollaries to the Law of Inertia:

1. A force is the cause of the effect which is a change of an inertial state.
2. The observation of a change of an inertial state implies the cause to be a force.

Causality is causes causing effects.

Restated: Causality is people/objects/events who/which are comprised of m/e and who/which are causes forces which cause effects which are (A) changes of inertial states or pre-existing people/objects or (B) new people/objects/events who/which are potential causes of additional effects, etc.

Universe = Space, Time and Physics (Matter/Energy).

Space = Volume of infinite radius/diameter which is a pure vacuum except for areas in which matter and/or energy (m/e) is present; space is of infinite--eternal--existence--duration in time.

Anaology: A water glass devoid of water is empty; a water glass with a 50% water content is both half full and half empty--simultaneously, no less, half full and half empty, and a water glass with a 100% water content is full of water.

Similarly, space devoid of m/e is a pure vacuum, and space with a 50% m/e content is simultaneously both half full and half empty and therefore simultaneously has areas devoid of m/e which are therefore pure vacuums and other areas full of m/e which are therefore not pure vacuums, and, of course, space with a100% m/e content cannot possibly be a pure vacuum, nor have within it areas which are pure vacuums.

Time = The use of a duration or periodic cycle called a time-interval as a unit of measurement for the measurement of the number of time-intervals between or among the occurrences of events or number of time-intervals of the duration of a single event.

The Continuum of Time

Past Infinity <- ... <- T-2 <- T-1 <- T0 (Origin) -> T+1 -> T+2 -> ... -> Infinity Future

... or ...

T0 (Origin) -> T1 -> T2 -> T3 -> T4 -> T5 -> ... -> Tn (Infinity Future)

Where

T = Timepoint
n = The last number--n--of an infinite series of numbers

Time, the temporal process, the temporal measurement process, is infinite in duration.

Physics = Objects and Events comprised of Matter and/or Energy.

Unless opposing forces are introduced, physical events--causal relationships--continue their current inertial states/motions.

Thermodynamic experiments (inre the transfer of heat in steam engines) by Sadi Carnot and chemical experiments by Antoine LeVoissier have proven that matter and energy are convserved in closed/isolated m/e systems; this means m/e is indestructible and therefore of infinite duration.

Einstein's e = mc2 and m = e/c2 describe the interrelationship of matter and energy wherein matter can be converted into energy and energy can be converted into matter with no loss of either matter or energy.

If physics (m/e) is expressed in quanta (the plural form of quantum)--electrons (electromagnetic phenomena), photons (light), gravitons (gravity), etc., each quantum has a finite volume.

If each quantum is 100% contiguous with other quanta (if each quantum is surrounded by other quanta), then there is no empty space and therefore no pure vacuum; but if each quantum is not 100% contiguous with other quanta, then between quanta is space which is a pure vacuum.

Universal M/E = Closed M/E System

Experiments by Sadi Carnot and Antoine LeVoissier have proven that some matter/energy (m/e) systems are closed because ...

1. M/E cannot be added to the m/e system (where would the additional m/e come from?).
2. M/E cannot be removed from the m/e system (where would the removed m/e go?).
3. The sum total of the m/e is a constant (finite or infnite).

The universal m/e system is a closed m/e system because ...

1. M/E cannot be added to the universal m/e system (where would the additional m/e come from?).
2. M/E cannot be removed from theuniversal m/e system (where would the removed m/e go?).
3. The sum total of the universal m/e is a constant (finite or infnite).

Physics (M/E), being indestructible, is infinite in duration.

Because the universe = space + time + physics (m/e), and space is infinite both in volume and in duration and is eternal in existence, time is infinite in duration, and physics (m/e) is infinite in duration and therefore eternal in existence, then the universe is infinite in duration and eternal in existence.

Because space, time and physics (m/e) are infinite in duration and therefore eternal in existence, then they were never created/begun/etc. and therefore have been in eternal existence together, without one being in existence before the others, and, therefore, they are independent of each other--one cannot cause nor uncause the others (one is not the cause of the others), and they are not dependent on each other for their individual existences.
StMichael wrote:
Energy is the motion of the thing itself.
The law of conservation of energy says that energy is neither created nor destroyed.
StMichael wrote:
The last two sentences make no sense at all. Also, things cannot always have been in motion without requiring a Prime Mover, because an intermediate and final motion cannot exist without the first mover.
Therefore, according to your logic, he must have a mover.
StMichael wrote:
They do. They grow and “eat.”
Educate your self: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant Aristotle divided all living things between plants, which generally do not move, and animals.
StMichael wrote:
God is pure act and the cause of all things. He is the principle of motion of all things and He tends toward Himself perfectly as His end.
That would require all of time to have always existed thus no creation would be possible.
StMichael wrote:
How am I defining God into existence?
You can't
StMichael wrote:
Why can’t we define a perfection? It is more perfect to have some positive quality than not to have it. God is purely act, and thus must possess all perfection above all other existing things.
That would still make "god" a caused being and the beginning of his time would still be the beginning of our time.
StMichael wrote:
No. But your questions aren’t cogent at all.
No. But your questions aren’t cogent at all.
StMichael wrote:
No, because it is not the efficient cause of its own motion.
Therefore your P1 is false.
StMichael wrote:
To possess a positive quality. As in “more complete” possession.

The more complete life is, the more complete its self-movement.

God himself is complex: In that case, complexity is used to explain complexity (we all know that complex human beings can create something quite complex, though these things are usually not as complex as human beings). That is no explanation at all, still the source of complexity is unknown. If complexity must have an explanation, what is the explanation for the complexity of god? Or, god himself is very simple: In that case, you have an explanation, namely, simple things can develop into complex things. But now there is no need to invoke god, we know that simple things can evolve into complex things, and that this is true for our universe. And that is all there is to explain complexity. No need to complicate that simple explanation by moving the problem to god without solving the problem of complexity. Problems should be solved, not moved to something unexplainable, because I'm not better off than I was in the beginning, I have still no explanation.
StMichael wrote:
Oh my gosh. We have been talking about this the entire time.
It's funny because we don't know of any gods, not required for life or anything. Laughing out loud
StMichael wrote:
Thus, they move themselves. They are the principle of their own growth, eating, eye movement, thoughts, ect.
No they dont.
StMichael wrote:
This statement is totally and utterly unjustified. You just assert your own opinion.
My point is that whatever definition of perfect people come up with, there is a problem with it. Hence the argument from perfection fails.
StMichael wrote:
Yes, it is a sort of First Cause argument. But I don’t see how something can be the cause of its own movement in the same way and in the same respect.
Than this god must have a mover. According to your logic.
StMichael wrote:
I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. Do you think that I think Zeno’s paradox is correct? And, in matter of fact, you cannot merely add finite beings to reach infinity.
Prove it.
StMichael wrote:
I never argued this second premise. I would advocate in the course of argument that there is something that is the cause of existences without a prior cause. But I have not yet been at all arguing for a first efficient cause, but for a Prime Mover. But the Prime Mover does not move itself. So this doesn’t apply.
This god is less conscious than a rock.
StMichael wrote:
?
If God was a candy bar which one would he be?
StMichael wrote:
?
I actually think God would be made out of carob. It looks like the real thing, but with a little investigation it's obviously fake.
StMichael wrote:
?
My smiting offer is still on the table. Since I'm still here mocking you (I admit, it's like the proverbial fish in the barrel) I assume that either you don't have a direct line to god (so you're a liar), your god doesn't care what I say about him (so he shouldn't care if I believe or not), he's lazy or too powerless to smite me (so why bother calling him 'god&#39Eye-wink or he doesn't exist (Occam's Razor strikes again!).
StMichael wrote:
?

StMichael wrote:
I am showing that an unmoved mover exists. It must exist for things to exist now, otherwise they would not be in motion (which they obviously are).
So does god. According to your logic Smiling
StMichael wrote:
This is why I chose not to respond to your threads before. You just sit around, throwing your opinions in the air and dismissing my arguments without considering them. On top of that, you changed your positions within the same sentence in previous posts. One more try. If you don’t want to play by the rules, I don’t see how I can talk to you as there cannot be a way to do so.
The fact that it's been refuted in the centuries since it was first proposed.
StMichael wrote:
Except that God is not self-moved.

God is unmoved.

Then no decision was made, So this god did not create anything.
StMichael wrote:
But it requires an initial mover. Physics is predicated on this.
And this initial mover requires a mover according to your logic.
StMichael wrote:
How can you move an infinite number of bodies in a finite time? An infinite number of bodies would require an infinite amount of motion in an infinite time.
Motion itself needs no mover.
StMichael wrote:
We still understand this in physics. Why else would we inquire where, for example, comets came from if we merely postulated that they were always in motion without an origin?
If god's eternality is atemporal, he had a beginning: There was a time before which he didn't exist. That means the KCA (Kalam Cosmological Argument, a variant of the first cause argument) proves (if we accept theist claims that it proves anything) that god had a cause.
StMichael wrote:
Still requires a first mover.
*Parrot* If God Doesn’t Change When Making A Decision Then No Decision Was Really Made
StMichael wrote:
Gravity is not an unmoved mover.
Why ?
StMichael wrote:
Only what is in motion need be moved. God is not in motion, otherwise there could be no cause of motion.
How the can something that is not in motion move anything?
StMichael wrote:
I don’t need to explain this again as I have already done this multiple times in my post.
P1: "To be alive" is to be able to mock the meaningless babble of others, in some manner of speaking.
P2: The more perfect the mocking is, the more perfectly it elicits laughter from the audience it was meant to entertain.
P3: Intellectual forum life is a self-motion that determines the mocker's end.
C1: The most perfect mocking would be one where the target you are mocking doesn’t realize you are mocking them, and thinks you are sincere.
--------------------------------------------------------------
P4: But “Pikachu” is pure meat, and meat by-products, and his own principles of sarcasm - moving Himself toward Himself as an end.
C2: Therefore, Pikachu has the most perfect intellectual life, moving Himself toward His own substance as His end.
StMichael wrote:
The unmoved mover is the cause of existence, as subsistent existence itself (pure act). Other things move, or exist, or have any perfection at all, only because they share in the movement or being of the Prime Mover.
If god created existence, there was a point in time when god didn't exist. At this point in time, god didn't posses the existence necessary to exist.
StMichael wrote:
No there does not. Why does the phrase “outside of time” make no sense to you? Eternity in God is having all things be eternally present to Him. It is a lack of movement through time. When God creates motion in things, He creates time (the motion of bodies determines time – special relativity).
I say it when I am outside the Time offices. Laughing out loud
StMichael wrote:
God acts in eternity, not in time. Nor does He need to. He creates all things from eternity. There is no contradiction at all.
In other words, God is what we developers call a "script". A set of variables that are executed at a given time. The only difference is that God has been on "run" for eternity. With no chance to stop, go back, change course, undo, etc. Just a mindless script running... Laughing out loud
StMichael wrote:
I don’t understand how this works backward from my conclusion.
I checked out the self-observation, and it seems that way here to. I got in big trouble in a Cognitive Psych course over whether they were just measuring the transmission time between various decision making centers and not the actual time it took for us to make decisions. The various sub-decisions that make up an actable decision all seem to be arrived at as soon as the information is recieved.
StMichael wrote:
All life contains in its nature the principle of its own movement. It has no external principle of movment. So, everything living (animals, plants, humans, angels, God), not including robots.
So, does one's will move about in the brain until it moves the body into action? Or, does the will stay at rest until it acts? I would say, based on self-observation, the will remains at rest until it acts, causing the body to move into action. Ergo, an unmoved mover.
StMichael wrote:
To get a glass of water is a movement toward an end that was determined by the actor, not for example by gravity.
False dichotomy. As noted above, this assumes time is like a line so thus there must be an infinite regress (in a linear progression). What if time is cyclical? You still have, functionally, an infinite regress but since we're in a circle, there's nothing unmoved. This point also presents a grossly simplified view of cause and effect which would more appropriately be described as causeS and effectS. Movers are influenced by the things they move as much as the mover influences the moved. Rarely is the ratio of causes-effects a 1-to-1. Even in rolling a ball down a hill you have not just a push-roll, but a host of other variables such as gravity, wind, resistence, etc all acting as causal variables at each moment that ball is rolling.
StMichael wrote:
An animal is not intelligent in determining its own ends. Its following of ends comes from instinct and so forth.
So if god didn't decide to create the universe and didn't act to create the universe Then the universe must have just happened on it's own.

IOW - Why credit God with Intelligent Creation when he supplied neither Intelligence nor Creation?

StMichael wrote:
The motion toward a determined end is what intellectual thinking is. Moving without external force, or by one’s own nature is what it is to be alive. The most perfect intellectual life acts by virtue of itself, thinking itself as an end.
My problem is the Claim that TFC is Conscious. Smiling
StMichael wrote:
There is no contradiction to say that God can know or act in eternity.
Eternity: Time without beginning or end; infinite time.

That would require all of time to have always existed thus no creation would be possible.

StMichael wrote:
And your phrase, “invoking logic or God” would seem to easily negate your own use of logical reasoning.
Well, as Exhibit A (you) demonstrates, invoking god is certainly no example of logical reasoning. I have yet to see the first shred of logic in your posts, much less anything approaching proof.

What's God's favourite position then? If he's an unmoved mover, I'd guess he goes for muff licking only. Smiling

God had no time to create time.


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
To Triften: That is

To Triften:

That is precisely why infinite regress in movers is impossible: because it would entail an infinite number of movers/moved moving in finite time, which is impossible. Thus, there must be a first unmoved mover.

 I'll answer the other later.

 

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael 

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


Pikachu
Pikachu's picture
Posts: 181
Joined: 2006-08-19
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote:I have no

StMichael wrote:
I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. Do you think that I think Zeno’s paradox is correct? And, in matter of fact, you cannot merely add finite beings to reach infinity.
Of course you can add finite numbers to reach infinity, as long as you add an infinity of them. Failure to acknowledge this is at the root of your claim that an infinite regress is impossible, which is the cornerstone of the modern prime mover argument. The infinite quantities of finite things is how the various Zeno's paradoxes are resolved.

We know the hare can pass the tortoise. We also know there is nothing conceptually wrong with dividing a distance in two. Zeno's paradox (and the claim that an infinite regress is impossible) are both rooted in the failure to recognize the existence of actual infinities. But the fact that the hare does pass the tortoise resolves the argument. Actual infinities are not only possible, they are actual.

StMichael wrote:
The only possible escape for atheist is the invention of a kind of super universe, which can never be confirmed experimentally (hence it is metaphysical in nature, and not scientific).
This is absolutely laughable.  To begin with, this atheist (and I believe atheists as a whole) are not trying to 'escape' from anything.  I embrace discovery.  In the spirit of discovery I welcome the challenge of learning the answers to unanswered questions.  It is the theist who would build a wall using an unquestioned answer (Goddidit!) and obstruct progress by killing or imprisoning 'heretics' who would dare question that unnegotiable assertion.  Check [URL=http://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/StarChild/whos_who_level2/galileo.html]Galileo Galilei[/URL]'s story for but one of many examples.  Trust me, you don't want to challenge me to bring forth more.

In short there are many possible explanations for the origin of the universe in its current state.  String theory offers some intriguing possibilities.  Oscillating universe models have been purposed.  There are other myriad possibilities that have yet to be discovered.  The Olympic gods were dismissed when nothing was found on top of Mt Olympus.  Yahweh was dismissed by many reasonable people when it was discovered that there was no "firmament", the earth did not exist before the sun or stars and there clearly was no global (Noah's) flood.  This particular "god of the gaps" will eventually go the way of Zeus, Thor and Ra.

StMichael wrote:
Outside time
"Outside Time" is an awkward manner of expressing, "does not exist". It is like refering to the present as "yesterday's future" instead of "now".

God had no time to create time.


Vessel
Vessel's picture
Posts: 646
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
  Even though I tired of

 

Even though I tired of slamming my head against the wall of unfounded assertions this thread had become, I have still been reading along, or at least skimming it on the off chance of running across a bit of argumentation that has not been stated and re-stated a hundred times. Imagine my suprise when I ran across this:

StMichael wrote:
The only possible escape for atheists is the invention of a kind of super universe, which can never be confirmed experimentally (hence it is metaphysical in nature, and not scientific).

While this is by no means the only possible "escape" for atheists I find it odd that after all this arguing that the first cause argument  proved god as a necessity, not just a possibility but an undeniably necessary entity, StMichael now says that there is an escape for atheists, which smashes to bit his argument that god is necessary. What the hell have you been arguing for if you could understand another possibility?

 

 

“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins


Pikachu
Pikachu's picture
Posts: 181
Joined: 2006-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Thanks Vessel, this will be

Thanks Vessel, this will be useful against StMichael on his next reply. Laughing out loud

There is measureable evidence of something beyond the ordinary 4 dimensions of spacetime.

- the four basic forces imply at least one more "hidden" dimension of spacetime in which to act if nothing else

- quantum self interference also implies at least one more "hidden" dimension, as does quantum entanglement and tunneling

- David Deutsch's simple laser experiment also shows at least one more "hidden" dimension.

Whether or not the big bang can be explained in terms of one or more such "hidden" dimensions  has yet to be determined, but we know there is more to the universe than what we humans directly sense, and there's no reason to think we can never learn more than this through continued search. 

String theory, complex time, multiple universe, etc. are not ideas concocted to be untestable.  The goal is to come up with testable theories, not false "answers" designed to satiate our curiosity while being untestable and telling us nothing at all, such as the god speculation.

But putting all speculation aside, the evidence today suggests that history is finite, starting with the big bang.  Based on this alone, the proper conclusion is that there is no "before the big bang", which means it isn't proper to speak about what caused the universe (which implies a time when time did not exist). 

Rationalists have no need to concoct bullshit answers to invalid questions.  The proper response is simply to point out that the question contains invalid hidden assumptions.  It isn't satisfying to think that the universe is of finite age and is also uncaused, but there's nothing inconsistent with such a position.

However, that need not stop us from searching for a more satisfying position, assuming it's based on actual observation, particularly since there is in fact evidence of something beyond the ordinary 4 dimensions of spacetime.

StMichael wrote:
I already did. If there is no first mover, the intermediate and final motion ceases to exist. Hence, there is required a first mover.
You don't seem to realize that this answer does nothing at all to support your contention. In an infinite regress, a first mover is not required because each motion is caused by the preceding one. Removing one of the "movers" in the infinite chain would only remove subsequent motions, not previous ones. You can't remove the "first mover" in the chain because there is no first mover in an infinite chain. Your argument makes no sense.

Anyway, this is all predicated on Aristotelian physics which we know is wrong. There is nothing physically (or logically) impossible about an object moving eternally without anything moving it.

God had no time to create time.


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
I can't find where I might

I can't find where I might have said this, so point it out to me.

If there was a meaning to it, I can't remember the context in which I said it.

 Pikachu, do you have nothing else to do but write all day? You just keep reiterating your same points over and over again, answering the same post multiple times and usually going off into a totally irrelevant topic. You had one shot and failed. You had a second, and lost it again. I am not responding to your posts again. I am sorry, but you can't seem to discuss an issue like a normal person. I am open, however, to talk to any other person on this forum who presents himself in a rational manner and wishes to discuss some particular issue.

 

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael 

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


Pikachu
Pikachu's picture
Posts: 181
Joined: 2006-08-19
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote: I can't

StMichael wrote:

I can't find where I might have said this, so point it out to me.

If there was a meaning to it, I can't remember the context in which I said it.

 Pikachu, do you have nothing else to do but write all day? You just keep reiterating your same points over and over again, answering the same post multiple times and usually going off into a totally irrelevant topic. You had one shot and failed. You had a second, and lost it again. I am not responding to your posts again. I am sorry, but you can't seem to discuss an issue like a normal person. I am open, however, to talk to any other person on this forum who presents himself in a rational manner and wishes to discuss some particular issue.

 

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael 

"To be truly open-minded is to the accept the possibility that you may be wrong." - Reginald V. Finley, Sr

Eye-wink

God had no time to create time.


Vessel
Vessel's picture
Posts: 646
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote: I can't

StMichael wrote:
I can't find where I might have said this, so point it out to me.

If there was a meaning to it, I can't remember the context in which I said it.

I took it from the quote in Pikachu's response to you. If it is a misquote then disregard it and, by all means, continue the assertion-fest with whoever is willing to continually point out flawed assertions only to have them re-stated as proof of their own veracity.

“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins


Pikachu
Pikachu's picture
Posts: 181
Joined: 2006-08-19
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote:There is

Just a nitpick.

StMichael wrote:
I have no idea what you mean when referring to the smoothness or irregularity in the universe, and I don’t think the distinction is cogent. And your phrase, “invoking logic or God” would seem to easily negate your own use of logical reasoning.

OK, but the inequality is necessary because there is NOT nothing now.
The idea is really quite simple! For example, a website like google operates in a highly defined manner, yet the search results depend on the requests that you make of the website. Similarly, the universe obeys rules or regularities, but they do not really do anything unless operating against input. Once the initial input is received, the rules and regularities will then play the universe out in a manner defined by the rules. If you could further imagine two bouncy balls, one with a starting point two meters above the ground, and another that is all ready resting on the ground. The first ball will begin to move when released the second ball will not. This is what is meant by inequality or lack of smoothness in the initial conditions of the universe - the early universe was wound in such a way that it produced all the structure around us.

Therefore, you are not really looking for a prime mover, but something that created the initial conditions of the universe. Logic will not suffice, as it is unable to offer sufficient reason as to why the specific initial conditions in our universe should exist. Now, anything that would suffice would have to carry as part of its essence the informational content of the initial conditions, or an inequality in its essence that would lead it to those initial conditions. From this I could argue, that the initial conditions of our universe were set in another greater universe by a man sitting at a computer, which could be true. However, predicating another greater entity as being the source or originator of the inequality in a way that this universe cannot be does not work, because there can be no ultimate source which does not invoke as its essence the inequality! You are stuck just having to accept that these inherent conditions exist and that is the end of it.

StMichael, your reply to my original post shows that you have not been able to grasp what I am banging on about. Your accusation, for instance, that my negating of God or logic as a sufficient explanation of the initial conditions of universe was itself based on logic, is plain wrong. I was not denying that logic has a use; I was denying that logic was useful as an explanation in this instance. And your statement "OK, but the inequality is necessary because there is NOT nothing now." is offered as a criticism yet appears to be in complete agreement with what I was arguing. However, be careful with the use of the word "necessary". If I am looking at a red car it is necessary that there is a red car. However it is not necessary that I am looking at a red car (hence the use of the term if).

As a side issue, I am not sure that my separation of rules and regularities from things that obey rules and regularities is an uncontentious point. Perhaps a physicist or someone more illuminated about the philosophical grounds of science can help!

StMichael wrote:
There is no contradiction to say that God can know or act in eternity.
A being that Knows every moment of Time can’t Act because that would require the creation of a new moment of Time and thus disprove that he knew every moment of time in the first place.

Ciao.

God had no time to create time.


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
I scoured the posts to find

I scoured the posts to find where I might have said that, and now think that Pikachu was just being dishonest and made it right up. Which is why I won't be talking with him.

 

Your In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael 

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


Pikachu
Pikachu's picture
Posts: 181
Joined: 2006-08-19
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote: I scoured

StMichael wrote:

I scoured the posts to find where I might have said that, and now think that Pikachu was just being dishonest and made it right up. Which is why I won't be talking with him.

 

Your In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael 

BTW: Im a girl

God had no time to create time.


triften
Silver Member
triften's picture
Posts: 591
Joined: 2007-01-01
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote: That is

StMichael wrote:

That is precisely why infinite regress in movers is impossible: because it would entail an infinite number of movers/moved moving in finite time, which is impossible. Thus, there must be a first unmoved mover.

How would an infinite regress require an infinite number of movers moving in finite time? The claim that there is only a finite amount of time to work with seems an unfounded assertion.

-Trfiten 


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Because the movers moving

Because the movers moving right now move in a finite time. If there were an infinite regress of these movers, this mover must be acting on those which act upon it infinitely backwards. This would thus move them in a finite time, which is impossible, as you yourself pointed out. Thus, a first mover, unmoved by any other, is absolutely necessary.

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael 

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


Pikachu
Pikachu's picture
Posts: 181
Joined: 2006-08-19
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote:Because

triften defence

StMichael wrote:
The movers moving right now move in a finite time. If there were an infinite regress of these movers, this mover must be acting on those which act upon it infinitely backwards.
Who says that M1 has still to exist once it has interacted with M2 and caused it to move ?

Typically, in an infinite regress there will only be a finite number of "movers" (events) in each finite time interval. Only the total number of movers is unbounded.

In brief, you are based your argument on two principles of Aristotelian physics which we know to be false:

  1. That movers have to continue "pushing".
  2. That signals travel at infinite velocity-
StMichael wrote:
This would thus move them in a finite time, which is impossible, as you yourself pointed out. Thus, a first mover, unmoved by any other, is absolutely necessary.
Such a first mover would violate Newton's 3rd law: actio = reactio..
    P1. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
    C1. Therefore there is no such thing as an unmoved mover.
Nothing your saying is even comprehensible. If you are not a troll, please seek professional help.

To help keep track of this infinite regress of "movers", let us imagine that they are labeled -1 ... -2 ... -3 ... and so on back into the mists of history.

When you say "THIS MOVER must be acting on those which act upon it ...", which one are you referring to?

When you say "those which act upon it infinitely backwards" are you trying to say that each previous mover must come forward to THIS moment in time to accomplish the movement of the new item? That seems pretty silly, so I'm hoping that you mean something else.

Just because an infinite line of time can be segregated into finite parts does not mean the entire line must be finite.

For example;

    The selection of real number at our disposal can go on infinitely.  Agreed?  If you disagree then please tell me what the absolutle largest number is. (I've always wanted to know that!)

    We can then take any size section of that infinite line and count them.  For example, numbers 50 - 300.  This section if finite.  Agreed?

    Just because we can take a finite chunk out of an infinite line does not mean the line must be finite (as shown above).  Therefore, think of the time we currently "move" in as a finite chunk of an infinitely regressing line.

Your argument, as much as it can be decyphered, rests upon the claim that if there was an infinity of causal steps extending backwards in time, then there was no way to get to the here and now from the first cause 'this mover'. This is not a contradiction but a proof of the incoherence of your notion of minus infinity; if the causal chain extends back infinitely, there is by definition no first element from which it could be impossible to get to the current point; either there is a first cause, or there is an infinite chain of causality going backwards in time. (And let's not even start the discussion concerning the extreme difficulties surrounding the definition attempts of 'cause' and 'effect'.) The problem appears to be that you are so hell-bent upon presupposing a first cause that you force-fit it into all models, and therefore a model which would show that a first cause isn't necessary suddenly appears to you to contain internal contradictions (between its consistent core and your forced presupposition, that is).
    The problem here StMichael is your entire paradigm is based on this moving movers concept. Its fallacious. There are no moving movers, prime or otherwise.

    The universe, this reality, is based on energy in different forms, that does not include movers or moving movers or any of this claptrap. There is energy. Out of the pure energy various forms distill out. No matter. Just forms of energy. Eventually, some of this energy condenses into basic forms of matter. Much of that anihilates itself on antiforms of itself. A very small portion of matter is left over. Meanwhile there is still oodles and oodles of energy oozing around. No movers, no moving movers, no primer movers. That is a paradigm developed 2300 years ago by philosophers who did no experimentation to test their ideas. They disdained empiricism because they believed everything could be derived by thought. It can't. You can't derive the gravitational constant by thought alone. You can't derive the speed of light by thought alone.

    Beyond this, you still haven't supported your OP, that infinite regressions are impossible. Until you do, your statements are meaningless. You could just as easily say Mars is the center of the solar system or green cheese is intelligent. You need to present support for your premises and then we can discuss the whether or not your conclusions are valid.

Stop making silly assertions unless you can back up with objective and testable evidence.

God had no time to create time.


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
My assertion was not that

My assertion was not that the chain moved in a finite time, but that it cannot move in a finite time. If we are to believe that, as your position would advocate, that an infinite regress in movers is actual, then this would entail the absurd conclusion that an infinite number of movers moves in a finite time. In other words, because an infinite number of movers CANNOT move in a finite time, this requires that there is no such infinite regress in actual movers.

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael 

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


Pikachu
Pikachu's picture
Posts: 181
Joined: 2006-08-19
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote:My

triften
Silver Member
triften's picture
Posts: 591
Joined: 2007-01-01
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote: My

StMichael wrote:

My assertion was not that the chain moved in a finite time, but that it cannot move in a finite time. If we are to believe that, as your position would advocate, that an infinite regress in movers is actual, then this would entail the absurd conclusion that an infinite number of movers moves in a finite time. In other words, because an infinite number of movers CANNOT move in a finite time, this requires that there is no such infinite regress in actual movers.

First off: 1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 +... = 2 so an infinite number of things CAN equal a finite value.

Secondly: Even if an infinite chain could not move in finite time, so what? Where are you getting this finite time requirement from?

-Triften 


Pikachu
Pikachu's picture
Posts: 181
Joined: 2006-08-19
User is offlineOffline
To Agnostics

Agnostics

triften wrote:
Secondly: Even if an infinite chain could not move in finite time, so what? Where are you getting this finite time requirement from?
I think he means from the BB until now. This COMPLETELY misses the point of infinite regression moving backwards infinitely, but that's the only possibility I can ascertain from his posts.

God had no time to create time.


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
It has no impact on my

It has no impact on my argument whether or not an infinite series comes to a finite limit.

In response to the second part, the movement of an infinite chain  in a finite time is a necessary conclusion if one holds that an infinite regress in movers exists. As I said before, we notice that things right now are acting, giving motion to other bodies in a finite time (as I can hit the tennis ball with my racket in a few seconds and give it moton). However, everything that moves (in physical bodies) is likewise acted upon by the thing it moves (every action entails and equal and opposite reaction). So, if one thing moves in a finite time, this entails an equal and opposite movement of the chain in a finite time. But, if this chain were infinite, this would necessitate an movement of an infinite in a finite time, which is impossible. Thus, we must logically conclude that this chain is, of necessity, only finite in absolute movers.

 Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael 

 

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


triften
Silver Member
triften's picture
Posts: 591
Joined: 2007-01-01
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote: It has no

StMichael wrote:

It has no impact on my argument whether or not an infinite series comes to a finite limit.

In response to the second part, the movement of an infinite chain in a finite time is a necessary conclusion if one holds that an infinite regress in movers exists. As I said before, we notice that things right now are acting, giving motion to other bodies in a finite time (as I can hit the tennis ball with my racket in a few seconds and give it moton). However, everything that moves (in physical bodies) is likewise acted upon by the thing it moves (every action entails and equal and opposite reaction). So, if one thing moves in a finite time, this entails an equal and opposite movement of the chain in a finite time. But, if this chain were infinite, this would necessitate an movement of an infinite in a finite time, which is impossible. Thus, we must logically conclude that this chain is, of necessity, only finite in absolute movers.

Are you saying that if you hit a tennis ball and the tennis ball hits a wall, that the wall is acting on you? If A acts on B, then n seconds later, B acts on C, that C has acted on A?

-Triften


ShaunPhilly
High Level ModeratorSilver Member
ShaunPhilly's picture
Posts: 473
Joined: 2006-03-15
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote: It has no

StMichael wrote:

It has no impact on my argument whether or not an infinite series comes to a finite limit.

In response to the second part, the movement of an infinite chain in a finite time is a necessary conclusion if one holds that an infinite regress in movers exists. As I said before, we notice that things right now are acting, giving motion to other bodies in a finite time (as I can hit the tennis ball with my racket in a few seconds and give it moton). However, everything that moves (in physical bodies) is likewise acted upon by the thing it moves (every action entails and equal and opposite reaction). So, if one thing moves in a finite time, this entails an equal and opposite movement of the chain in a finite time. But, if this chain were infinite, this would necessitate an movement of an infinite in a finite time, which is impossible. Thus, we must logically conclude that this chain is, of necessity, only finite in absolute movers. 

Fine, but the universe is not contained by a set of objects taht don't change and simply bump into one-another in a chain.  Rater, it is a hugely complex network of interacting objects that not only effect one another in more than linear ways, but they also change form over time into different things.

Your criticism might make sense if we were talking about the simpler analogy of dominoes, but we are in fact not talking about that.  

 Consdier this; what if our universe were simply one domino in said line? Or better yet, the universe were like one action among a multiverse of actions that effect one-another in a non-linear and possibly eternal manner?

This unmoved mover universe of yours is a simplistic anstraction, based on your limited understanding and imagination.  I'll agree that if the universe were as you describe it, thenb God might be necessary.  The difference is that the universe is not as you describe it, and in this more complex and strange universe, the unmoved mover concept is simply not applicable.  

Your setting up a strawman universe and saying it needs God.  Were' saying taht even in that strawman universe, God does not appear to be necessary.  Further, that strawman does not represent the universe we live in.

Shaun 

I'll fight for a person's right to speak so long as that person will, in return, fight to allow me to challenge their opinions and ridicule them as the content of their ideas merit.


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
OK, the last post just

OK, the last post just disappeared, so I have to start this again.

Quote:

Are you saying that if you hit a tennis ball and the tennis ball hits a wall, that the wall is acting on you? If A acts on B, then n seconds later, B acts on C, that C has acted on A?

Yes, in a manner of speaking. Every body that acts has an equal reaction from the other body is acts upon. Thus, C <-> B, which B <-> A. So, yes, C is acting on A, assuming they are bodies.

 

Also, my proof does not assume merely linear cause-effect relationships in the universe. We speak of simple examples to illustrate our point. Any number of such relationships could exist, but these all must be accounted for by an Prime Mover. Even if the universe were eternal and there were causation and movement interacting in the multiverse (assuming such exists), this nevertheless still requires an ultimate mover without which such movement cannot exist. Even if such movement existed from eternity, such movement would necessarily depend on a Prime Mover, even if it depended on Him from eternity (like the sun rays and the sun, where the sun's rays are never found without the sun).

 You also brought up a good point about things changing, which leads into another proof for God's existence. We obviously see that things are corrupted and generated in our universe. But of course, something which did not exist at one point in time is not a necessary being - it is possible for it not to exist. But if all things were of the character of possible, changing being, no thing would have always existed. Hence there would have been a time at which no thing existed, and no thing would exist now, which is absurd. Therefore there must be some necessary being which brings other possible beings into existence. Even if one necessary being is caused by another, these causes cannot proceed to infinity, otherwise these things would merely be possible and not necessary. Hence, it is required to posit one necessary being who is necessary of its own accord, and not because of anything else. This is God.

 

 Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael 

 

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


triften
Silver Member
triften's picture
Posts: 591
Joined: 2007-01-01
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote:

StMichael wrote:

OK, the last post just disappeared, so I have to start this again.

Quote:

Are you saying that if you hit a tennis ball and the tennis ball hits a wall, that the wall is acting on you? If A acts on B, then n seconds later, B acts on C, that C has acted on A?

Yes, in a manner of speaking. Every body that acts has an equal reaction from the other body is acts upon. Thus, C <-> B, which B <-> A. So, yes, C is acting on A, assuming they are bodies.

In the previous example, how has the wall imparted force upon you?

There is no reason that two bodies have to finish interacting within a finite time. Gravitation always occurs at any distance, any body will gravitate towards another no matter how far away. From now until forever. That's not finite time.

Additionally, even if you assume that the interactions happen in reverse, why does that require finite time?

StMichael wrote:

Also, my proof does not assume merely linear cause-effect relationships in the universe. We speak of simple examples to illustrate our point. Any number of such relationships could exist, but these all must be accounted for by an Prime Mover. Even if the universe were eternal and there were causation and movement interacting in the multiverse (assuming such exists), this nevertheless still requires an ultimate mover without which such movement cannot exist. Even if such movement existed from eternity, such movement would necessarily depend on a Prime Mover, even if it depended on Him from eternity (like the sun rays and the sun, where the sun's rays are never found without the sun).

An infinity does not have to have a beginning. That's like saying that the integers require a smallest number. It only "requires" an ultimate mover because you want it to.

For the time being, I'm going to focus on the issues with unmoved movers. Someone else can pick up your proof regarding corruption.

-Triften


Pikachu
Pikachu's picture
Posts: 181
Joined: 2006-08-19
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote:Even if

StMichael wrote:
Even if such movement existed from eternity, such movement would necessarily depend on a Prime Mover, even if it depended on Him from eternity (like the sun rays and the sun, where the sun's rays are never found without the sun).
Ah ! ah !

You've just conceded you were wrong about the infinite regress (although indirectly) and thus destroyed the entire silly prime mover argument and are now attempting to substitute a "necessary being" type argument in its place.

Next you'll no doubt be moving on to a ontological argument of some kind, followed by a cosmological argument, complaints about epistemology, and ultimately ending in an appeal to faith.  We see this patterm here over and over endlessly as each new theist who joins thinks he's got something we haven't already seen and refuted thousands of times. 

ALL of these types of arguments have been beaten to death over the past several hundred years.  None of them withstand scrutiny.  Your faith really is just rooted in your desires, and nothing more.

God had no time to create time.


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
As I hit the ball, the ball

As I hit the ball, the ball hits my racket, and the ball hits the wall and the wall hits the ball. The wall acts on my racket by means of the intermediate mover - the ball. Hitting the ball is the same as acting on the wall, and viceversa. The wall "hits" my ball at my racket with its equal force and opposite reaction.

 Further, I never said the reactions had to finish in finite time. Merely, the action, for example, on my racket was completed in finite time. If there were an infinite number of movers, all of them would be acted upon likewise in the finite time my racket acted. Hence, they would be moved in a finite time. This, however, has been shown to be impossible.

 Any reaction to my force of motion is always equal and opposite. This entails that it occurs in the same time in which I acted. So, I press down on the rock for 2 seconds, and the rock pushes up on my hand for 2 seconds. The rock does not continue to push up on my hand after I stop pushing on the rock.

 Lastly, claiming an Prime Mover is not analogous to claiming a smallest number for integers (though, I would almost argue that there must be a basic number, such as 1 unit X for integers to exist). A Prime Mover is necessary because motion can only derive from a mover. And there cannot be an infinite series of movers, otherwise no motion would exist. Hence, there is a Prime Mover.

 

Your In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael 

 

 

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote: My

StMichael wrote:

My assertion was not that the chain moved in a finite time, but that it cannot move in a finite time. If we are to believe that, as your position would advocate, that an infinite regress in movers is actual, then this would entail the absurd conclusion that an infinite number of movers moves in a finite time.

No, it would not. You've not demonstrated this point, nor have you demonstrated the impossibility of an infinite regress. In fact, about all you ever do is just assert, and often your assertions are not only in contradiction to basic logic, or basic understanding, but are in contradiction with your own church.

 

 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote: I don't

StMichael wrote:

I don't know what the argument was beforehand, but I can answer this a bit.

Quote:

I do not have the exact verses on me as I am on the run here, but I am sure it says somewhere in the bible that "God spoke to his son (Jesus)", Jesus prayed..."Oh Lord.....something.." What I am getting at is that there are clearly two entities here, and you can't have it both ways saying that Jesus was the Son of God and that he is God himself who "transformed" into a man to make a point.

Except that Jesus is not God "transformed" into man, but is both God and man at the same time. 

 

I find it funny that you take people to task over for their assumptions, when you have no problem at all just launching off howlers like this...

 

Even when they contradict your own bible:

 

Mark 1 (New International Version)

New International Version (NIV)

Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society


Mark 1

John the Baptist Prepares the Way
 1The beginning of the gospel about Jesus Christ, the Son of God.[a]

 2It is written in Isaiah the prophet:
   "I will send my messenger ahead of you,
      who will prepare your way"[b]
 3"a voice of one calling in the desert,
   'Prepare the way for the Lord,
      make straight paths for him.' "[c] 4And so John came, baptizing in the desert region and preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. 5The whole Judean countryside and all the people of Jerusalem went out to him. Confessing their sins, they were baptized by him in the Jordan River. 6John wore clothing made of camel's hair, with a leather belt around his waist, and he ate locusts and wild honey. 7And this was his message: "After me will come one more powerful than I, the thongs of whose sandals I am not worthy to stoop down and untie. 8I baptize you with[d] water, but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit."

The Baptism and Temptation of Jesus

 9At that time Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. 10As Jesus was coming up out of the water, he saw heaven being torn open and the Spirit descending on him like a dove. 11And a voice came from heaven: "You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased."

 

Please don't waste my time with your ridiculous spin on these words.... save your rationalizations for yourself.  

 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


Pikachu
Pikachu's picture
Posts: 181
Joined: 2006-08-19
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote:As I hit

StMichael wrote:
As I hit the ball, the ball hits my racket, and the ball hits the wall and the wall hits the ball. The wall acts on my racket by means of the intermediate mover - the ball. Hitting the ball is the same as acting on the wall, and viceversa. The wall "hits" my ball at my racket with its equal force and opposite reaction.

 Further, I never said the reactions had to finish in finite time. Merely, the action, for example, on my racket was completed in finite time. If there were an infinite number of movers, all of them would be acted upon likewise in the finite time my racket acted. Hence, they would be moved in a finite time. This, however, has been shown to be impossible.

 Any reaction to my force of motion is always equal and opposite. This entails that it occurs in the same time in which I acted. So, I press down on the rock for 2 seconds, and the rock pushes up on my hand for 2 seconds. The rock does not continue to push up on my hand after I stop pushing on the rock.

 Lastly, claiming an Prime Mover is not analogous to claiming a smallest number for integers (though, I would almost argue that there must be a basic number, such as 1 unit X for integers to exist). A Prime Mover is necessary because motion can only derive from a mover. And there cannot be an infinite series of movers, otherwise no motion would exist. Hence, there is a Prime Mover.

StMichael, your concept of physical interaction is seriously flawed. It is utterly wrong. Which is what I have been saying all along. In the situation described, the wall cannot have an effect on the racket. You don't seem to understand that time is involved. You, or anyone or anything, cannot reach back in time by your actions. If you did, reality would change. But beyond that deep issue, in this case, though the notion of action and reaction is valid, it does not reach back in time. The wall is impinged upon by the ball, the ball reacts to this just as the wall does. There is no connection to the racket, none. That's because your entire mover concept is utterly invalid. Once the balls leaves the racket, all connection between them ceases. Then racket transferred kinetic energy to the ball. Then the ball is in free motion. The only thing affecting its state is the air it is moving through. Until it strikes the wall.

Have you ever read Newton's Laws of Motion? They are a very good model of reality at most energy states and most physical scales. They have been validated time and time and time again. Literally millions and millions of times. They are also very logical and rational. You really should give it a try.

Think about it, when the ball strikes the wall, does the racket move? Does it experience any force on it? No, of course not. This is why when you drop a ball to the ground and it bounces your hand does not move or feel any force on it. Because there is no longer connection between your hand and the ball and there never was between your hand and the ground. Even if you were to throw the ball down there would be no effect on your hand.

StMichael, you have not demonstrated anything other than you have some very odd ideas and notions about reality which cannot be supported by experiment. Which are at odds with literally millions of experiments by all sorts of people all over the world over the last several hundred years.

You have demonstrated the standard theist principle which is to start with a conclusion and try to build a way to get to it. I defy you to create an experiment that demonstrates any of your claims.

Movers are things to which we wish to draw attention. Regardless both the mover and the moved are perceived as moving. You, however, are attempting to invoke another type of mover, a type of mover that is not moving, an exception! I personally have no problem with exceptions yet in this case, I do not see the exceptions relevance, since in normal language there is no conceived or implicit external mover that is not also moving.

Tough questions can be asked of events that involve movement, such as what makes them so. Unfortunately, no answer can be given that does not invoke equally tough questions.

God had no time to create time.


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
I see no apparent

I see no apparent contradiction, even on a superficial level. Please explain. But, you know, don't even give me a chance to defend myself against your random assertions.

 

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael 

 

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


Pikachu
Pikachu's picture
Posts: 181
Joined: 2006-08-19
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote:Random

I do know an uncaused event: a (rare) decay of a pion into electron + anti-neutrino. There is no cause why the decay should not be of the ordinary muon + anti-neutrino kind. In addition, the spin component in a particular direction is uncaused: the pion is spherically symmetric and cannot cause a directed quantity.

StMichael wrote:
[1] If among movers and things moved we proceed to infinity, all these things must be bodies - coporeal entities. But every body that moves some thing is itself moved while moving it. Therefore, all these infinite bodies are moved when moving some thing. But one of them, being finite, is moved in a finite time. Therefore, all these infinites are moved in a finite time. This, however, is a contradiction. Hence, it is impossible that an actual infinity of movers can exist.

[1.a] Furthermore, it is impossible for an infinite to move in a finite time. This is because the moved and the thing moved must exist simultaneously. But bodies cannot be simultaneous except by continuity or congruity. Now, as has been proven, all these movers and things moved are bodies and thus most constitute a single congruity or continuity as a sort of single mobile. In this way, one infinite is moved in finite time. This, however, is impossible.

[2] If there is a series of ordered motions, where a mover moves a moved thing, and so on, it is necessarily a fact that if one removes the first motion, the subsequent motion ceases. This is because the first motion is the cause of motion in the others. If the order of causation was infinite, it possesses no first mover. Hence, no subsequent motion can exist.

[3] That which is in motion is only moved in so far as something moves it. Thus, a log is potentially hot but not actually so until it is set on fire. But, if there were no first mover, all things would be merely instrumental movers. They will thence be moved movers and there will be no motion because there is no first mover. Hence, no motion would exist, which is impossible.
In [1], you say that each "mover" must move something "while" (= at the same time as) it is being moved by the previous mover.  Not necessarily - think of a series of billiard ball collisions, where each collision happens some time after the previous one, and the billiard ball that was "moved" in collision N is the only thing moving until it collides with the next billiard ball in collision N + 1.  Such a sequence can be projected as far back in time as we want.  I think the fundamental problem is that your notion of motion is Aristotelian (objects are naturally at rest and only move when pushed), but the world we live in is Newtonian/Einsteinian (an object moves in a straight line at a constant speed until a force acts upon it).

[1.a] again, applies only to objects connected mechanically to each other.  On the scale of infinity or near-infinity, that's not the kind of universe we live in.  When we look at the real universe, we see that as far out as our telescopes can reach, it consists of swarms of stars called galaxies separated by vast distances but influencing each other's motion by means of gravity.  You don't have solid objects connected to each other like links in a chain.  You have objects floating in apparently endless space and interacting mainly by gravity.  The prohibition you derive against an infinite chain of objects moving in finite time does not apply here.

[3] What's wrong with an eternal universe that has always been in motion, and that therefore never had a "mover" that you can point to and say "this one was the first"?  Infinity is paradoxical, but it's no more paradoxical than saying that space and time have ends beyond which you can't go.
StMichael wrote:
Infinity is paradoxical, but it's no more paradoxical than saying that space and time have ends beyond which you can't go.
Actually, I would find a space-time that has ends far more paradoxical than one that does not. For instance, you then have to ask yourself what was before? What caused it to begin? What caused that cause? and there you are, back into your paradox. The same is true of the end, why should it end? What happens then? Again, you return to the paradox of infinity.

It may well be there is a beginning and/or ending, but I see no necessary reason for such and there is always the very obvious question of what happen(ed/s) beyond that/those point(s).
StMichael wrote:
I see no apparent contradiction, even on a superficial level. Please explain. But, you know, don't even give me a chance to defend myself against your random assertions.
So, which domino fell first? Which one was the Prime Domino?
    (In case my analogy is too subtle for you, my dominoes thought experiment is an example of an infinite regress of movers. You must find a flaw in it in order for your Prime Mover argument to survive.)
No apparent contradiction? How can you say that? You have clearly stated your mover paradigm means that if you hit a ball with a racquet and that ball then hits a wall, somehow the wall affects the racquet. Is this not true? Here are your own words:
StMichael wrote:
As I hit the ball, the ball hits my racket, and the ball hits the wall and the wall hits the ball. The wall acts on my racket by means of the intermediate mover - the ball. Hitting the ball is the same as acting on the wall, and viceversa.
Wrong. The opposite reaction happens only on the object causing the action. In the case of the ball/racket/wall, the racket hits the ball, causing an immediate equal reaction on the racket. The ball then hits the wall causing an unnoticable action on the wall, and an equal reaction on the ball. The racket is out of the loop at that point.

If what you were saying were true, there would be an infinite loop of the racket acting on the wall which acts on the racket which acts on the wall, etc. Your attempting to invent your own bogus physics to support your bogus prime mover argument.

This is just plain silly. You don't seem to live in the same world with the rest of us or you would have observed anecdotally by now how the world works.

StMichael wrote:
The wall "hits" my ball at my racket with its equal force and opposite reaction.
There is always an equal and opposite reaction in every exchange of energy, what one obtains, the other gives up. But there is no mechanism for the wall to exchange energy with the racquet. None. The entire exchange is between the wall and the ball. When the ball strikes the wall, the wall in contact deflects and the gas within compresses. The wall flexes slightly. Transmitting the energy into the ground. But it also flexes back, imparting that energy back into the ball. There is also the decompression of the gas within the ball causing the wall of the ball to 'push off' the wall. The ball flys away. There is no interaction with the racquet.

If you believe there is, please explain how it works. Can you describe an experiment which demonstrates your theory?

For my (and Newton's) theory, it will take me a while to figure out how to do so with commonly available materials, but it can be done.

In the meantime, perhaps you can explain what happens when you let the ball go and it falls to the ground. Nobody has moved it. But it moves. Indeed, it increases its speed as it falls. What's doing that? When the ball bounces off the floor, what is the floor imparting its energy to? According to you, nothing. Because nothing 'moved' the ball.

How about if you throw the ball up, it goes up and up, then it stops and falls down. How does your theory explain that? When it bounces off (hits) the floor does the floor push up on your hand with an equal and opposite force? Ah but the ball pushed down with an equal and opposite force. So do they cancel out? How is that?

Go ahead, explain yourself.

God had no time to create time.