Thread 17920748

Why do theists think the Prime Mover argument is a valid argument for God? It seems like every time a theist attempts to explain this they always devolve into wordsalad.

>>17920748 (OP)
just because you can’t understand it doesn’t mean it’s not a valid argument.
doesn’t mean it’s correct, but calling it word salad just gives away that you’re not smart enough to argue against it.

>>17920748 (OP)
>everything has a cause, except god
Didn't these niggers forget that they believe in free will, which also has to be an "uncaused cause" to make sense? Or do they ALSO cram compatibilism into this mess to make it even more hilariously unparsimonious?

>>17920753
I get what it is but why do theists think it's a valid argument for God specifically?

>>17920756
Aristotle didn't even have an answer for this
If God is eternal, that means the chances he'd create this universe will always be 100 percent, so his own free will is not even necessary
If God exists outside of time, then he effectively has no free will, as you've just reduced the universes creation down to a 50/50 coin toss, either this universe exists or it doesn't. Which makes his creation random chance anyways.

>>17920748 (OP)
>atheist thinks theist has a simplistic view of reality
>theist explains his view in a non simplistic way, with philosophical jargon required to understand its depth
>hah, wordsalad!
There is nothing I hate more than a fucking midwit. Even if you don't accept it's conclusion, insulting your opponent because you're unable to understand their position is one of the stupidest low IQ things you can do.

>>17920748 (OP)
>>17920756
>>17920783

Personally I dont care much of Aquinas proof of God, more that the Scholastics were obsessed with trying to prove Aristotle went to Christian heaven instead of burning in pagan hell.

>>17920971
It's wordsalad anon. Theists pull insane mental gymnastics to try to justify why God must be necessary according to the Prime Mover argument, because fundamentally God isn't necessary. If nothing caused God, then nothing caused the universe. If you think this is a misunderstanding of the prime mover argument then you're wrong. It's a refutation that you refuse to accept.

>>17921086
>Accuses theists of word salad
>Makes a fundamentally inane statement

>>17921102
Why is it an inane argument anon? This should be good

>>17921109
>If nothing caused God, then nothing caused the universe.
I could go through all the reasons this is inane but since you can't understand your blunder when you initially wrote this, why should I waste my time?

Question begging and special pleading

>>17921167
You just don't have a valid reason why God is necessary to begin with, it's not an inane question, you just don't have a valid answer.

>>17921221
I do have valid reasons to believe in Gods' existence. On the contrary, you have no reason to believe that nothing can beget something.

>>17921238
>On the contrary, you have no reason to believe that nothing can beget something.
Yes I do, it's called not having evidence for God lmao. You don't have a valid reason to believe in Gods existence, you just have presuppositions and assumptions. By the same token, you have no reason to believe that the universe even needs a prime mover in the first place.

>>17921242
Fourth estate brain damage

>>17921246
Apologetic brain damage
The burden of proof is on you anon, remember this.

>>17920748 (OP)
Because they literrally have nothing beside wonky philobro "arguments"

>>17921253
How about you prove something can come from nothing? Oh wait, you can't.

>>17921262
Where did god get the stuff to make the universe?

>>17920756
Free will is caused by God.
>>17920756
>>17920757
>everything has a cause except God
You also believe that there is an uncaused being, you just believe he is not God.
Preposition 1: Things are in motion
Preposition 2: Things moved are moved by another
1. Whatever is in motion is moved by another.
2. Infinite regress per se subordinated series is impossible.
Whatever moves is moved by another, to be moved is to go from potency (moved) to an act (mobile) by a mover. (Definition of motion).
Potency and act cannot be attributed to the same thing in the same sense because it is contradicting.
Therefore, the thing which is moved (potential) does not move (act) itself.
Now for infinite regress, a) each moved mover is an instrumental mover; it communicates movement. b) That which communicates movement has it from another.
c) Thus, none of the instrumental movers have movement in of themselves.
d) Finally, the multiplication of those who lack movement of themselves will not result in one which does.

>>17921086
>if nothing caused God, nothing caused the universe
But we do not profess that nothing caused God, we actually believe that nothing cannot exist, therefore being is necessary. Which you agree to, you only disagree that this being is God.

>>17921268
>Things are in motion

Motion is relative

>Preposition 2: Things moved are moved by another

Assertion without proof

You already failed the first two premises

>>17921273
>motion is relative
They still are in motion.
>proposition 2
If you read the rest you would see why.

You did not read the reply.

>>17921273
>>17921302
It should also be noted that motion does not mean to move from a place to another. So in case this is what you meant you misunderstood the argument.

>>17920748 (OP)
>why
ask an atheist a few questions...

Looking at dark green suv:
Q: How did that car get there?
A: It was engineered and built by humans

Looking at model of solar system:
H:How did that universe get there?
A:Poof it just came into existence at some time

>>17921273
(I am the one who you originally responded to)
No, the actualization of a potential does occur, it is not relative, it absolutely happens.
The thing is moved by another because for it to actualize its potential it should be actualized by a thing which already has its potential actualized. For example, if I have a glass of boiled water on the table, it has the potential to become cold, this potential is actualized by the cold air in the room who’s potential to become cold has been fully actualized. None of this is relative as we do not hold motion to be movement from a place to another.

>>17921302
>They still are in motion.
Relative to what?

>If you read the rest you would see why.

You didn't answer anything

>>17921321
>No, the actualization of a potential does occur

This is not a thing that happens; philobro speak has rotted your brain

>The thing is moved by another because for it to actualize its potential it should be actualized by a thing which already has its potential actualized

Another assertion withput proof; start to speak normal amd you might actually give a good argument

>>17921334
(I am this poster >>17921321)
I think you too are arguing over movement from a place to another not the actualization of potential.
See my reply to you for the rest >>17921321

>>17921338
Just because you can’t understand it doesn’t mean it is false. This is a thing that happens. If it actualizes its own potential than it is contradictory because it is at the same time the one with an unactualized potential somehow actualizing its own potential, it’s like a battery charging itself by itself. Besides I would like you to answer this question: Is the thing that is moved, moved by itself or another?

>>17921321
>None of this is relative
It is; time and space are relative so any event in time and space is relative; the problem with philobros is that they are stuck withe understanding of the world of medieval theologians

>>17921350
What do you mean by event?, and when you say time and space are relative it really does not affect the argument, please reread it.

>>17921349
>Is the thing that is moved, moved by itself or another?
Begging the question; you are alreaduly assuming the thing was moved by something else

>>17921353
>What do you mean by event
An event is anything you cam measure in space and time; I already read your argument and it still fails, this concept of potwntial amd actualization is completely meanigless

>>17921354
How did it move by itself? Can an empty battery charge itself?

>>17921357
>completely meaningless
Shows you didn’t read it.
>anything you can measure in space and time
Simply irrelevant to a potential being actualized.

>>17921358
Still begging the question

>>17921360
>Simply irrelevant to a potential being actualized.

It is very relevant; do you understand what time being relative implies?

>>17921361
You are not answering, if the battery has the potential to be charged, this potential is actualized by a source which already has its own potential to be charged actualized OR it is actualized by an instrumental charger which communicates the charge to it from another source. Won’t you agree?

>>17921366
First of all potential can be actualized without external action, second you are still begging the question.
Third what do you think time between events being relative implies?

>>17921364
Explain how you believe it matters in this specific case.
>>17921372
>actualized without external action
The empty battery charging itself?
>time between events
All motion is relative to a frame of reference, time and space are not absolute.

>>17921375
>The empty battery charging itself?
The motion of plantets around other bodies and the motion of a mass with a spring attached; you are still begging the question.
Do you know what entropy is?

>All motion is relative to a frame of reference, time and space are not absolute.

Good, what is the feature of events in a cause and effect relation timewise?

>>17921375
>The empty battery charging itself?
There is nothing in physics that actually prevents this from happening; see entropy

>>17921380
>motion of planets around other bodies
They are moving due to the other bodies which are in turn in their place because of other bodies.
Which still does not address the point as we are not talking about physical motion, by motion we can simply mean going from hot to cold or even you going from not reading to reading this.
>entropy
In thermodynamics?
>feature of events… timewise
These cause effect events you are discussing do not touch the subject of existence. But in this case the timewise would depend on what time origin we are referring to because you do not believe it to be absolute.

>>17921383
You are already assuming an entire system alongside the battery.

Atheists don't know:
How the universe started
Where the mind came from
Where anything came from
Classical philosophy
How to answer a hypothetical

>>17921387
>They are moving due to the other bodies
But the system is still chamging potential to actual

>Which still does not address the point as we are not talking about physical motion, by motion we can simply mean going from hot to cold or even you going from not reading to reading this.

Philospeak has rotted your brain

>In thermodynamics
Yes; notjing is physics prevents spontaneous reduction in entropy; your battery can charge by itself

>These cause effect events you are discussing do not touch the subject of existence. But in this case the timewise would depend on what time origin we are referring to because you do not believe it to be absolute.
If time is relative so is actualization of potential

>>17921389
No; even restricting it to the battery alone it can spontaniously go to a lower entropic state

>>17921397
Can you explain literally anything you wrote here in detail
I am particularly interested in
>If time is relative so is actualization of potential

>>17921402

>But the system is still chamging potential to actual

A system composed of two masses that are orbiting eachother converts potential and kinetic energy spontaniously just like a mass on a spring so there is nothing actualized acting on them

>Yes; notjing is physics prevents spontaneous reduction in entropy; your battery can charge by itself

Basically energy equilibrium is just the more likely state, so there is nothing preventing spontaneous recharging of a battery or the separation of a gas in two portions with different temperature

>If time is relative so is actualization of potential

If time is relative then there is no objective time when the potential is actualized something could be observed to be actualized and potential at the same time

>>17920753
Most theistic prime mover arguments that I've witnessed typically devolve into wordsalads. Idk how someone can talk about complex physics and motion dynamics and end the argument with "that's why you need to accept Christ"

>>17921262
Oh wait you actually can..quantum fluctuations something something ?

>>17921397
>the system is still changing potential to actual
What do you mean by the system in this case?
>philospeak
No this is what we mean by potential and actualization, we are not talking about moving a ball.
>your battery can charge by itself
No because the charge isn’t being formed from nothing. Let us say the battery converts x into charge, x must already exist. It does not happen isolated. What I am asking is if an empty isolated battery can charge itself.
>so is actualization of potential
This misunderstands what actualization of potential is, explain how you going from not thinking to thinking also does not absolutely occur and is only relative. You are only applying these concepts to material entities.
>>17921398
The battery isn’t alone, there is a system alongside it.

>>17921415
You jumped to the conclusion. This isn’t prove of Christ, the latter requires proof that God exists and is simple, historical evidence, etc…

>>17921315
You don't understand the big bang, I know its hard being as stupid as you are I'll give you that.

>>17921409
What do you mean? There is no objective time when potential is actualized? The only definition of time that makes sense is that it's the measurement of movements.
So you would measure time by actualization of potential, or (simply put) movement.
Can you explain what it means for actualization of potential to be relative if time is relative? What does it mean for movement to be relative in this case? Is it relative to time? How can they both be relevant to each other? Do you have a better definition for one thing or the other?

>>17921428
Meant to write relative, not relevant*

>>17921421
>What do you mean by the system in this case?
Anything you are currently observing and monitoring the exchanges of energy and matter that leaves/enters

>No because the charge isn’t being formed from nothing. Let us say the battery converts x into charge, x must already exist. It does not happen isolated. What I am asking is if an empty isolated battery can charge itself.

Yes; the answer is that it can; batteries are chemically fuelled; let's say chemical A is converted to chemical B when the battery is in use, B is the lower energy chemical so the temdecy is to generate B, this is an increase of entropy but there is nothing in physics tgat prevents the spontaneus lowering of this quantity; so B can spontaniously become A


>This misunderstands what actualization of potential is, explain how you going from not thinking to thinking also does not absolutely occur and is only relative. You are only applying these concepts to material entities.
This relativity applies to anything that exists in time and space; thinking does too so the state of not thinking and thinking can ve simultaneous for an appropiate observer

The battery isn’t alone, there is a system alongside it.
No you can remove everything else and it still can recharge

>>17921394
Theists don't know:
>How did God start
>How can God's complexity be understood by humans
>If a God exists why would be be so Anthropocentric in his actions ?
>basic logic and reasoning
>how to answer a simple question without top tier mental gymnastics and logical stretching to fit their narrow world view.

>>17921428
So you would measure time by actualization of potential, or (simply put) movement.

The poimt is that measurement is demendent on the observer; it's being on a moving cart and measuring the velocity of bjects on said cart, there is no absolute measurement because someone on the ground or other moving carts will give you a different answer

>>17921431
>system
This system is composite, different parts of the system are each actualizing different potentials, this system depends on its parts.
>batteries are chemically fueled
>when the battery is in used
What charged the battery for it to be used and for the rest of the process to happen?
>simultaneous
In which case can you be not thinking and thinking to different observers?
For the case of the battery we should move it to the second point.
>>17921433
The necessary being (which you also accept) does not have a start or else it would not necessary.
>God’s complexity
Irrelevant to us knowing his existence.
The rest is all subjective.

>>17921442
>This system is composite, different parts of the system are each actualizing different potentials, this system depends on its parts.

Irrelevant

>What charged the battery for it to be used and for the rest of the process to happen?

The battery could have been charged or built uncharged; irrelevant to showing how it can charge itself

>In which case can you be not thinking and thinking to different observers?

I thibk it' s an observer that is going at the speed of light, still irrelevant to the fact that actualization and potential aren't absolutes

Don't know shit about philosophy but what annoys me about this are the metaphors that should be able to convince retards like me, stuff like
>nature is so complex and beautiful, you wouldn't just find a drawn picture and conclude that there isn't an artist to draw it wouldn't you?
>did you spring out of nowhere? Of course you had parents, without them it wouldn't make sense for you to exist!
>God? Oh jeah that is just randomly there and sparked everything else into existence
the logic to all of the arguments kind of defeat itself

>>17921451
>irrelevant
No it is because the system is dependent on parts that are not fully itself. So it is not dependent on its existence.
>been charged
How was it charged? It is relevant because this entire cycle cannot occur. If it were built uncharged, the battery could not function for your described process to happen.
>observer going at the speed of light
How would this change the fact that you are absolutely thinking? It shows that actualizations are absolute. Motion in this context is not about something physically moving. This is essential to the argument, even in this case you would still observe motion if you are in a kart moving, you will observe yourself moving or else you would not be aware of it.

>>17921435
Okay your point has nothing to do with anything. Motion or movement objectively happen sequentially, as if in a causal chain. It's not relative as you say.

>>17921458
Tbh only the last argument is valid if you research it. Also on a side note, no one knows philosophy, we only know how to philosophize.

>>17921465
No it is relative; justvbecause you don't like it it doesn't make it go away; quantum mechanics also uses retrocausality, the problem is that you are stuck with the ancient concaption of nature and physics peoole 2000 years ago had

>>17921463
>How was it charged?
By the spontaneous lowering of entropy in the chemicals that make up the battery; if you can't understamd see how batteries and entropy works

>How would this change the fact that you are absolutely thinking?
It doesn't and it's not relevant; the fact that there is no objective moment when youbstart thinking is

>>17921474
>charge
It was charged by the chemicals not by its own existence.
>no objective moment
It is relevant because because the potential is being actualized. If there is no objective time for the thinking to start it does not mean the thinking never started. It started at a time but this time is not universally agreed on.

>>17921469
How can things in a causal chain be relative to each other?

>>17921485
Not eachother but an observer

>>17921482
>It was charged by the chemicals not by its own existence.
The chemicals reverted to lower entropy by themselves with no external action; you are just playing semabtics now

>>17921492
So your response was totally irrelevant.

>>17921494
>reverted to lower entropy by themselves
No, energy is added to organize the molecules for the state to be more organize hence lowering entropy.
For entropy to be lowered, do you believe that the entropy was objectively lowered?

>>17921504
Again entropy can spontainiously lower without external action; you clearly didn't understand the previous posts

>>17921496
It's not; it shows that actualization is relative and not an absolute

>>17921523
And what caused it to lower? How did the molecules become more organized in their own state? (If you can even say entropy objectively happened)

>>17920748 (OP)
You suck at rhetoric. The rightness is proved by the ability to run verbal circles around the opponent, not make factual arguments

>>17921268
>Free will is caused by God.
Unless god is puppeteering you, that fails as an explanation. Free will requires constant spontaneous cause generation to work. It needs to be a magical superpower capable of initiating causal chains acausally. The point is that the prime mover argument rests on everything evolving deterministically from cause and effect until the beginning; the existence of anything that operates differently breaks it.

>>17921662
No, because free-will is given once and unless God relinquishes it it remains. It does not change anything because God caused free-will once. It does not require spontaneous cause regeneration.
Now answer this simple question: Is the thing that is in motion moved by something which is moved or not moved?

>>17921264
Christians generally teach creation ex nihilo - that is from nothing.

Mormons believe matter was always there and the god of our planet arranged this preexisting matter to form our solar system.

>>17921713
>free-will is given once
We're not talking about its origin, but what it does. Are actions done by free will predetermined? Then they're not free. Are they not? Then free will starts novel causal chains on its own. It breaks the idea that everything is clockwork because free will has to be able to start uncaused causes to be free.

>>17921804
>predetermined
What do you mean by predetermined? If God had knowledge? Yes he did.
Let me assume you mean something else and they were not predetermined, free will doesn’t start any chain, free will is rather what describes the state of man.

>>17921861
Are actions done by free will spontaneous? Then they start new causal chains and you get a clusterfuck of causal ontologies. Are they not spontaneous, but rather caused by a deterministic mechanism? Then the will is not free. It's not possible to frame everything as deterministic while preserving free will. It needs to be able to break away from a bound chain of cause and effect to at least start new ones.

>>17921892
Do you mean that God knows beforehand what the choice taken will be?
Free-will does not cause anything, it is like claiming that the laws of Newton cause motion, they study the observation. Here the free-will does not cause anything, it only studied the observation of our actions.

>>17922134
>Free-will does not cause anything
Then how is it free?

>>17921524
Actualization, the causal chain of events or the sequential order of things is not relative you dumb animal. How is anyone supposed to take your dogshit seriously when you inject a subject you don't even understand (QM) into an argument that has nothing to do with physics? And to top that off, you hardly made an effort to write in good English. So you look doubly like an idiot.

The atheists in these threads are always such fucking imbeciles.

>>17921425
>big bang
poof
everything magically appears
kek

>>17922258
>magicaly
there are working hypothesis that explains how everything appears
Of course it isnt simple nor perfectly representing what really happened, but still, given it happened so long ago, we can deduct impressive amount of knowledge

>>17922230
>how is it free
This misunderstands free-will, what happens doesn’t have existence in free-will, free-will itself is not a being.