Yes, but how can you set something in motion without moving yourself? Is he inert, supermassive? — Haglund

Aristotle is talking about the cause of all motion.

Why is he called mover then? — Haglund

The cause of motion without itself being in motion.

And the unmoved mover? How he moves? — Haglund

The Prime Mover does not move.

Aristotle does not assign the role of 'creator of the universe' to the Prime Mover but there is much agency implied in being both the efficient and formal cause of all that is generated. — Paine

Prime Mover is only final cause. There is no efficient cause.

What I find engaging in Aristotle's thought about God is that it is both similar and very different from Christian theology.

The demiurg sets it in motion only? — Haglund

Aristotle never refers to a demiurg.

My impression from reading Aristotle is that the unfolding of beings according to their potential to become what they were meant to be is the clearest encounter with a maker of the world. There is encouragement to become 'more like' this agent but those encouragements happen in the context of recognizing that what makes us is tied to our agency no matter what.

Aristotle is not that far from approaching creation stories in the manner of Timaeus, where we are told constantly that the stories are 'likely' but cannot be confirmed. What Aristotle did with the Prime Mover is to introduce that factor as an X. He does not know the value but can proceed without knowing it. It has a function. — Paine

A few comments. Aristotle clearly does not think God/Prime Mover is the maker of the world. This is a Christian concept. For Aristotle, God has no agency.

Will you expand and explain the second paragraph, especially, "What Aristotle did with the Prime Mover is to introduce that factor as an X.

I think time is the universe as a whole. We can only think in parts, but have an understanding of time, which although vague, represents the unity and movement of the universe in eternal time. You seem to make the universe necessary, instead of a continuous revolution with no member first and no necessity to its existence — Gregory

Agree with that.

Dead matter indeed was once alive matter. But matter is not intelligent enough to cause itself. It's too dumb, perfectly created as it might be (it contains the seed of life!). — Haglund

Why is matter dumb?

Dead matter needs a creation. — Haglund

Why? And if matter is dead, wouldn't that mean it was once alive?

If someone says you don't understand, that is not an ad hominem argument. It's not even an insult. — T Clark

It is.

You don't understand? — chiknsld

Please refrain from ad hominems.

They are basically saying that if we cannot answer who created God then God does not exist. But that's an argument from emotion not logic. — chiknsld

What is the emotional part?

Sounds emotional. — chiknsld

ok

I think you're missing the point. If people are not capable of figuring out the first cause then you can always fall back on God. At least we can't really fall back on, "it's not interesting or compelling to me".

At least God is an answer. — chiknsld

To you, not me.

infinity is not an answer because first cause is necessary what ever it may be, God or not God. — SpaceDweller

Saying "God" is first cause is myth. Like I said, that is okay, there just is nothing further to discuss.

fine, I don't find plausible or compelling that anything you can imagine doesn't require prior reason for its existence.
after all we are talking about creation of the universe or everything, there must be reason.
everything needs or has a reason. — SpaceDweller

Infinite regress of cause. God created the universe. Nothing created God. Not an explanation, just a myth.
And I am fine with myth, just not this one.

Yea but other things mean something to you — chiknsld

Yes. As far as explanations for what our universe is.

I'm assuming you are alluding to the fact that other things are interesting and compelling to you? — chiknsld

Yes. The idea that God created the world for love just does not mean anything to me.

ove,

love toward creation, love toward existence, love toward anything. — SpaceDweller

I never found that interesting or compelling.

but there is reason for God's existence, while anything that you can imagine requires reason and first cause. — SpaceDweller

What is the reason for God's existence?

Certainly. With the proof that there must be at least one first c

Several particles could have popped into existence. A big bang. Several universes. There is absolutely zero necessity for a God, or a reason for why there is existence. The conclusion is, "There simply is." — Philosophim

Agree. The world exists. Any cause needs to be explained by a cause.

Pull back from this, whatever it means. All things that are known to be can be analyzed as known in a knowledge relation. This relation bears analysis. Don't get hung up on object classifications. — Constance

Ok.

All knowledge relations — Constance

Are you claiming belief is a physical object? Explain.

Philosophy discusses the presuppositions of knowledge relationships. No object, then nothing to discuss. — Constance

Notice I said, physical. Physical object.

I am not saying philosophy is a science. But consider taht language itself is an application of the "scientific method", the hypothetical deductive method: — Constance

Philosophy does not require a reference to physical objects in order to discuss an issue.

The aim of the Meditations is a complete reforming of
philosophy into a science grounded on an absolute foundation.
That Implies for Descartes a corresponding reformation of all
the sciences, because in his opinion they are only non-selfsufficient members of the one all-inclusive science, and this is philosophy. Only within the systematic unity of philosophy can
they develop Into genuine sciences. (Husserl, Cartesian Meditations) — Constance

Okay.

But it can be argued that all of the elaborations and elucidations in philosophy are far more determinatively based that literature. The latter is the broad and inclusive world of engagement, the body of which is the body of literature. Philosophy is the aloof observation, closer to science, really, which is why philosophers often place themselves within the same rigor of standards of validation: it is specialized, like science, and has focus. — Constance

I do not think philosophy has anything to do with science.

That's a new interpretation to me. According to this view, would lying to a murderer to save the victim then be considered moral because of the circumstances? Kant rejected this in Kritik der praktischen Vernunft. — BlueBanana

Murderer at the door example of Kant. Always wrong to lie even to save someone's life.

Did you peruse the links to SEP articles on each? — Banno

Stop misquoting me. It is wrong.

What about them? Can't monads exist in many worlds? Nomads travel between them. Monads stay in one. — Haglund

Nomads?

Two very different things with a similar name. Modal possible worlds, the sort Leibniz discussed, are used to discuss problems in modal logic. The many-worlds interpretation of QM is used to solve problems in physics. — Banno

Small minds think small thoughts.

Now, what do you understand a possible world to be? And can you distinguish one from a toity world? — Bartricks

Goodbye.

Then you are as lacking in humour as you are in insight. Substitute 'possible' for 'toity' and 'necessary' for 'hoity' and then see if that produces any mirth in you. — Bartricks

If you don't like philosophy, try posting on a chit chat site.

I don't believe in possible worlds. I believe in Toity worlds. Have you read Toity Worlds by Prof. Boule Sheet?

Prof. Sheet distinguishes between two kinds of truth: hoity truths and toity truths.

What's a toity truth? Well, a toity truth, Prof. Sheet tells us, is a truth that is true in at least one toity world.
What's a hoity truth? A hoity truth is a truth that is true in 'all' toity worlds.

What's a toity world? Well, it's just a device to make clearer what a toity truth is. — Bartricks

When I was 8 old I found this to be funny. Not since then.

Interesting.

Yes, and? — Haglund

And monads.

A possible world is a logical structure. A system, or world, that is governed by a rule.

People vary so much in which philosophers appeal to them, but it is also worth thinking about the cultural contexts in which they were writing. In particular, Nietzsche's writing is particularly critical of Christianity whereas Kant was firmly rooted in the Christian church tradition. So, how one views Christianity is likely to be important as much as the styles of the two writers. Actually, the two writers make an interesting contrast in their entire approach to philosophy, but they were probably equally serious in their pursuit of philosophy and very intense individuals. — Jack Cummins

Kant was a conservative.

I wish I learned philosophy as a child rather than religion.