Some say the world will end in fire,
Some say in ice.
From what I’ve tasted of desire
I hold with those who favor fire.
But if it had to perish twice,
I think I know enough of hate
To say that for destruction ice
Is also great
And would suffice. Robert Frost
The universe doesn't seem to be heading for a big crunch at this point. It seems more likely (at our current understanding) that the expanding universe will expand forever and keep getting colder. — Bitter Crank
How exactly can such a thing be? — Devans99
Something must have changed to cause the first cause. — Devans99
Time is circular. The first cause was the Big Bang and that was caused by the last effect; the Big Crunch. — Devans99
Which is fine, except one would have to leave the realm of the best consensus scientific theory of the the universe, that it is finite — Rank Amateur
Which is also fine - but just to be clear this is just as faith based a answer as "God". — Rank Amateur
I'm proposing circular time as a way out of the infinite regress problem at the start of the universe. I proposing it on the basis of logic rather than faith. It seems to be the only possible solution. — Devans99
ou are just missing stating the first proposition in your logic chain - your first proposition is " it is not God, because I don't believe there is a God" so it has to be something else — Rank Amateur
All of which is fair - I just want to point out to you that your answer to the un-moved mover has no philosophic difference than mine ( and Aquinas's') answer - Other than, my answer is consistent with the best consensus scientific explanation of the universe - while yours requires you to leave science all together and is baded solely on faith — Rank Amateur
- I do not believe the concept of an unmoved mover is logically sound.
- An infinite regress of movers in time is not logically sound.
- Something from nothing is impossible — Devans99
Basically you are still saying - Augustine's argument is logical, I just don't like his answer, so in that case it is not logical. — Rank Amateur
And you still have not acknowledged or answered my point that Augustine's argument is consistent with today's best science and yours is not - can you bridge that point for me ? — Rank Amateur
I gather than you mean deductive logic in this context, but that can only guarantee the derivation of true conclusions from true premises; it can neither furnish nor confirm the premises themselves. A deductive argument can be perfectly valid (logically correct), yet unsound (actually false). For example:I proposing it on the basis of logic rather than faith. — Devans99
This conclusion only follows from the three listed premises if there are no other possible explanations for the start of the universe, which seems unlikely. In any case, many careful thinkers throughout history agreed that an infinite regress and something from nothing are both impossible, but found no logical flaw with the concept of an unmoved mover. Your premise for rejecting it seems to be ...- I do not believe the concept of an unmoved mover is logically sound.
- An infinite regress of movers in time is not logically sound.
- Something from nothing is impossible
- That leaves circular time as the only possible explanation for the start of the universe — Devans99
This is true of everything that has a beginning, whose being is contingent; but it is not true if there is something that has no beginning, whose being is necessary. That is precisely what we mean by an unmoved mover--an eternal being, a necessary being, what in vernacular terms we usually call God.Everything has a cause surely? — Devans99
I'm saying the original prime mover argument is basically logical until it reaches the point of the 'unmoved mover' which is not a logical concept. — Devans99
Basically you are still saying - Augustine's argument is logical, I just don't like his answer, so in that case it is not logical. — Rank Amateur
Science points to a start of time (the Big Bang) and explains little else to my satisfaction. My argument needs a first cause (the Big Bang) so it is just as consistent with Science as other interpretations. But my argument also has the logical advantage of explaining the infinite regress / chicken and egg problem. — Devans99
but it carries no more logic or reason or basis that Aquinas - actually less - since it also requires you to disregard today's best science — Rank Amateur
Only by ignoring the fact that the whole point of arguments for an unmoved mover is that there must be a first cause that is not itself an effect of some other cause. Your axiom is actually that everything has a cause, which is a very different proposition--one that proponents of an unmoved mover would categorically deny.My version at least applies the axiom 'all effects have causes' consistently. — Devans99
Only by ignoring the fact that the whole point of arguments for an unmoved mover is that there must be a first cause that is not itself an effect of some other cause — aletheist
No, that axiom is maintained throughout. Again, the actual argument is that there must be a cause that is not an effect of some other cause.So I'd argue the start of the prime mover arguments uses the axiom 'all effects have causes' and the abandons the axiom at the end of the argument. — Devans99
Only in accordance with the unstated (and unwarranted) premise that everything has a cause.And the concept of a first cause is illogical as is an infinite regress. — Devans99
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.