My response to the Prime-Mover and First-Cause arguments

Thomas Aquinas put forward five arguments for the existence of god. Here are my responses to the first two:


1) "The Prime Mover" -why does god get to be an exception? If you truly believe that everything that moves was first moved by something else, then who moved god? Why does he get to be a special situation? It is as arbitrary as if we declared that the Big Bang is the Prime Mover, that was not moved itself. You will no doubt object to that as I object to arbitrtarily claiming that there is this special being that has the ability to not have been moved itself. Where is the proof that such a being exists? The original problem remains for both of us, meaning that we don't know how things played out in the distant past, but Thomas's "solution" only gives the illusion that he has solved the problem, it is not a solution at all, for he has to explain how it is that he can have a prime mover that violates his basic argument that everything that moves has to have something that put it in motion. There is no good reason to make an exception to that rule and call it god.

2) "The First Cause" - see above, as my refutation is the same except first cause would be substituted for prime mover. Who caused god? If you claim no one did, how can you justify making an exception, when there is no independent way to verify that such a non-natural being exists.

More fundamentally, why can we not have an infinite past? Why cannot motion be the status quo? Then we don't have to explain where it came from because it just always has been. See the thing is we only have to explain the first movement if things were originally static and motionless and then things started to move. But, if movement has always been, then it needs no explanation.

"Beginning" is just a frame of mind and is always relative to something. As difficult as it is to imagine, there does not have to be a beginning of all beginnings. If you disagree, prove why there must be a beginning. You will not be able to do it (Aquinas's arguments based on assumptions do not do it). If you can believe in an eteranl god, you can believe in an eternal cosmos (including what came before the Big Bang). If you can believe in a beginningless god, you can believe in a beginningless cosmos. We have never observed a beginning (an ultimate beginning - a beginning that comes from nowhere), why do we assume that such a real beginning even exists at all?

Comments

Anonymous said…
I think that you misunderstood the prime mover argument. What he says is that movement has to be caused by another movment and then another, but this cannot go on forever, so there must be a force that set the universe in motion origanally. If you accept the rule that all motion is must be cuased than it is easy to see how your comment about the argument (why make an eception for god?) is stupid. Now, if you look at science, many people have tried to use scientific theory to explain prime mover, but with our current laws, it is not easy to explain how something can move itself, or at least to the laymen.
Mon Feb 09, 12:21:00 AM PST
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why I left the LDS Church

[Last edited 1/28/10] I was a very deeply spiritual person and easily moved to tears when thinking of the Savior and the sacrifices I believed he made for me and the rich blessings he bestowed upon me. I was born in the covenant to convert parents who were very active in the Church and true believers. I had a strong testimony of Joseph Smith and the restoration even before turning eight for I had recognized the joy of the Spirit and the love for mankind I felt when reading the Book of Mormon. And after turning eight, I had an experience which I considered to be a visitation of an angel. When I was 14, my mother passed away. I felt very much alone and learned through that experience to lean on the Lord even more. I decided that I would do what was right because it was the path to happiness, not to please my dad or because of fear of punishment. I felt particularly close to Heavenly Father over the next few years, having had countless experiences of answered prayers, premonitions that w...
Read more

My Patriarchal Blessing

First an intro: Sister Mary Lisa recently posted parts of her patriarchal blessing on her blog. I have decided to do the same. I used to believe in this document so much. I believed that God was personally telling me how much he loved me and how highly he thought of me and what he had in store for me and the mission he sent me to earth to accomplish. I even made my PB into Section 139 of my Doctrine and Covenants and divided it into verses and inserted cross references to other scriptures. It really is beautiful and inspiring and I think patriarchal blessings in general are good for raising people's self-esteem. But, that good does not make up for what I believe to be the misdirection it gives believers. Believers make very important life decisions based on this blessing, which would be great if it actually came from God, but since in all likelihood it is nothing more than the words of an old man inspired by nothing more than his own thoughts and experiences, it can be quite danger...
Read more

Spalding's "Manuscript Found" vs "Manuscript Story"

I don't claim to know who or how the BoM was written. But, there is one point of confusion about the Spalding-Rigdon theory that has been exacerbated by most who have written on the subject, both anti and apologist alike. It is very important that anyone looking into this topic understand what I am about to tell you as most everything that has been written on the Spalding-Rigdon theory focuses on the wrong book. I am borrowing generously from websites for which I will provide links to below. The following is from: http://www.mormoninformation.com/srtheory.htm The "Spalding-Rigdon theory" was first given wide publicity in 1834 with the publication of the book Mormonism Unvailed. In it, the author followed up on indications previously published in Ohio-based newspapers that a man named Solomon Spalding was the real (and unwitting) originator of the Book of Mormon. To make an extremely long story very, very short, the theory goes that Solomon Spalding authored a work called...
Read more