Posts
It is certain, and evident to our sense, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is moved is moved by another, for nothing can be moved except as it is in potentiality to that towards which it is moved; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act or actuality. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be moved from a state of potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality... it is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is moved must be moved by another. If that by which it is moved must itself be moved, then this also needs to be moved by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and consequently, no other mover, seeing as subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are moved by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is moved by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at the first mover, moved by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.
This is straight from Aristotle. Note that by “motion,” Aristotle and Aquinas really mean something broader, including growth and diminution. All movement is initiated, according to Aristotle’s axiom, by some prior moving thing; motion cannot suddenly happen by itself “ex nihilo.” This means motion is either an infinite regression, or there is a first, unchanging changer or unmoved mover, responsible for setting the whole chain reaction off. An infinite regression is logically impossible; therefore there exists some unmoved mover.
This unmoved mover seems to me to correspond most directly to the Christian concept of the Holy Spirit.
It might be objected that sentient beings do, indeed, move themselves, at least in some respects. Aristotle counters this by claiming that, in such cases, one can isolate a part, already in motion, moving the whole, and this part does not initiate its own motion or change. So the unmoved mover must still be postulated. I expect this is true in a purely physical sense; you never see a living thing emerge from something completely without motion, growth, or diminution. And a living thing is constantly in motion, in some part.
I think Aristotle’s proof can be related directly to the more modern theory of inertia. A body in motion will stay in motion; a body at rest will stay at rest. “When no external force is acting, a body at rest remains at rest and a body in motion continues moving in a straight line with a uniform speed.”
Therefore, for any motion to exist now, there must have been some initial injection of motion into the cosmos, by some “external force.”
13 comments:
We have no proof there is a beginning or an end to motion. From what we can see, motion and ever changing matter is an infinite chain reaction. Gravity is the infinite matrix of motion. It pulls matter together until it explodes into a big bang, causes enough friction to ignite a star, provides a stable base for biolgical movement of cell division, etc.
So, is that what you think God is, gravity?
Moreover,even if it was true there was a first event (which there was not, see above), there's still no evidence whatsoever that proves it was a god who initiated it.
Aristotle let his pants down in his argument when he said, "Everyone understands this (the first movement)to be God." Hence, he was letting us know unconsciously that he was influenced by the herd, i.e affected by the Church's coercive propaganda.
Gravity and ever-changing matter is all we need to explain our existence. The concept of a god is an affront to the law of parsimony, an unnecessary complication (although necessary for those who make tons of doe from the carnival acts of religion, necessary for certain leaders to justify terrorism and war).
By the way, it is possible to use most ontological arguments in favor of God's existence to prove Batman and Robin exist. For instance, you could say, "imagine a perfect crime fighter, one of perfect jusice, valour, etc." The world would be less perfect without these crime fighters, so they must exist (i.e they stand for truth and truth is a good thing, "good" existes, therefore Batman and Robin must also be real.)
Also, I can imagine Batman being in a situation where he is caught by Catwoman and cannot escape without help. Robin helps Batman, thus the two working together is stronger than the whole, thus Batman and Robin must be real.
In case you're confused, I do not believe Batman and Robin are real. What I've done is shown you how ridiculous the ontological arguments are that favor God's existence. My obvious error was to assume Batman and Robin were real to begin with. I.e I based my premise on fantasy, like those who base their premise on the Bible.
The flaw is to attach logic (ie concepts of truth and justice) to fantasy (Batman and God). This is how sophists do, they make sense from nonsense.
Finally, if you ask me for proof of ever-changing matter, I could show you a star that has gone super nova or nova, I could boil some water, I could show you cell division.
What can you show me to prove your God? Nothing, zip, zilch.
There was a separate issue I've been meaning to address. A while back you spoke of those who "hate Catholics." Just so you know, I do not hate anyone. I'm all about the validity in an argument (besides, I'm a humanist, we are anti-hate). It might interest you to know that I am married to a woman who was raised by the most strict, Catholic parents imaginable (at one point my wife was going to be a nun). The association with her family is how I learned, through first hand experience, the inhumanity that goes on amid your cult.
Hold on a tick. I'm about more than the argument. My ultimate goal is peace and enlightenment.
Thanks
Well than EJ please stop arguing and become peace and enlightenment by acceptance of all peoples ideas and beliefs and know that karma which i believe you have some belief in is the highest science because it will honestly and without judgement consistently balance the scales of justice of righteous and wrong.
Ms. J, the argument of accepting all people's beliefs does not hold water. Some people, for example, believe in Nazism. Should we just sit by and not dispute their beliefs? This did not work out for Germany in the mid 20th century.
We create our own Karma, right? Thus, by speaking out against deleterious ideology, we are creating a more positive humanity. Just like millions of children must come to terms with the truth about Santa Clause, so to must humanity realize there is no god.
For one thing, they will stop hiding behind the supernatural and begin to take responsibility for their actions.
Dear EJ,
still arguing i see. You wont become enlightened or peaceful arguing .
As you know Falun Gong has had a brutal inhumane persecution waged on us which far surpasses the Nazi genocide and this is no disrespect to the Jewish race.When the facts are known the world will weep at the horror.
And we have remained peaceful non violent while fully utilizing all legal ways and the new technology of information to expose the communist regime for what it is thereby helping people to make their own decisions between right and wrong good and evil etc..
We cannot change peoples minds we can only touch their hearts with the principles of Truth compassion and forbearance,
This is what changes their mind and helps them realize the truth of this matter. No coercion no propoganda no re education no arguing just pure wish for them to see that this is a battle between Good and evil thereby saving their conscience and returning them to being a better human being.
I completely agree with your peaceful resistence. Isn't healthy debate an example of non-violent resistance?
If Steve's house was on fire, I would run inside to help him and his family. Please don't confuse our debate with malice (at least not on my part, I can't speak for him).
What if I am right about gods and religion? In a democracy the truth is supposed to prevail. I back everything I say with ironclad validity. This should count for something, right?
Dear EJ
What if you are not right?
I can back everything i say with rationality and experience. I do not talk about things I have not experienced. It just that todays science has not been able to prove the existence of Gods Buddhas and Daos and they never will.
Can you imagine an everyday human being getting into a Gods realm with his filthy mindset of a human being, He would cause all sorts of problems for the Gods including star wars thats why we are down here. Becasue we have fallen to this everyday level to once again cultivate ourselves back to our true real nature. Do ants know who we are? Can they explain thru their forms what we are? Can they see the bigger picture, who knows just talking..
There are many concrete manifestations that objectively exist in this dimension that cannot or will not be explained by present day science. What can be understood with present day science is extremely shallow and tiny.
One example to look at would be if the Chinese culture had not been destroyed by communism last century perhaps their science would have revealed many things today that our western science will not or cannot.
AS for phenomena that are intangible and invisible yet objectively exist many people against their own consciences label them all as superstition .
Yet some true scientists today have revealed that matter and mind are one.And that even though they cannot see the most microscopic particle they know that they exist and have got to the point now where they can only explain the particle as God or Love. And still this is so far away from even the most microscopic particle that as I said before humankind will never see or know the realms of Gods existence until their human heart rises to the level where they can be allowed to enter that realm.
This is what ascending to heaven is. You can only go the realm to which you have enlightened to. And cultivation only happens here on earth. You cannot ascend up any further when you have reached your realm. You must do the work here on earth.
Using the analogy of filling up a bottle with dirt and throwing into the water it will sink all the way to the bottom (earth). As you cultivate and improve your morality and give up human attachments you ascend. The bottle lets out a little of the dirt and it floats up some. Then you cultivate some more and the bottle lets out more dirt out and you float up higher.
In other words the characteristic the universe restricts your rising until you are able to assimilate to the abiding principles in that realm.
This is cultivation ,enlightening and ascension. So I ask you what will happen to you if you are wrong about there being no Buddhas Gods Daos?
Once again I implore you do not blame the Gods for religion nor denounce their existence. The enlightened ones who came to earth to save humankind did not teach religion. They taught cultivation which is an arduous path to returning to one true original self. Very few make it.
Religions are just the rituals of cultivation and they are all messed up.
Good day Ms. J,
Unforunately, your arguments all assume there's a god in the first place. If you considered the validity of what I've been saying, you would know there is no such thing.
Re morality: The following story I give my word to be true. Not long ago, my mother-in-law came home from having knee surgury. There was a family gathering at her house to welcome her home. Pizza was ordered for dinner.
When it arrived, all my son's Catholic cousins tried to butt in front of one another to get their food. My son turned to my mother-in-law, who sat beside her cane, and said, "May I get you you a piece Grandma?"
My son, a bona fide atheist who aspires to be a scientist, considered his grandmother before himself. This might not seem like a big thing to some people, but to me it speaks volumes.
Believing in a god is not the defining variable of morality. There are plenty examples of religious people, priests even, who do harm. Human traits, such as empathy and love, are what leads us to moral moments.
HI EJ, what you are failing to see is that I am separating religion from God. Just because there are people who say they are religious and believe in God does not mean they are cultivators of a righteous way or even good people. IN fact alot of them, most of them have taken an evil path because they use their religion not to attain Godhead but to bully people and make themselves superior .
My experience's of Lord of the Buddhas and heavenly realms are real and true and are arrived at thru rationally thinking correctly about true universal science not a human science which limits us coming from apes and mastering nature.
I will even go as far to say that unfortunately there are no Gods looking after humankind today in those religions which canno longer save anyone any more because of Humans interference and destroying the truth for gain and fame.
Humanity is at a very critical stage in its survival as all groups, organizations, and communities on the earth can recognize and relate to by their own experience's.
Disbelief in Gods Buddhas and Daos is not an option now. This is battle between Good and evil.
Yes, we are in agreement about religion supplying people with a superiority complex.
Ms. J, we did in fact evolve. This has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The reason you can not see the big picture is because you are locked into what you call "subjective" experience. What I have proved is objective reality.
The battle between good and evil is between good and bad people. Adding variations of belief in spirits only complicates the matter, and thereby, makes resolution more unlikely.
Besides all this, you have not considered the validity of my arguments. If you did, you would come to see there is no such thing as literal spirit. Karma, rebirth, the bliss of meditation all happen naturally, without magical spirits.
I never said anything about magic. Could that be your problem that you see Buddhas, Gods and Dao as being magical?
If we all evolved according to Darwin's theory then why are we all not super beings instead of so many virus's and ailments killing us all.Why aren't our hearts all strong could it be we haven't adapted to fat or cholesterols?
By you rationale even human have created their own babies right? They have a strange thing called sex and 2 separate organisms(the egg and semen) thru some "magical attraction" for one another joined up and made a baby?
And this is all a natural ooccurring sequence of evolutionary events.
I ask you who is the force behind life? If you randomly put some organisms to together in lab dish dish what do you think will happen? I can aassure you now They wont blossom into any life form as we know it there fore we are not random.
And if we are not random who is behind the life force?
I know that this commenting can go on forever and you will always find a way to negate the existence of that life force that creates this universe.So I accept that you cannot see the existence of that force.Some people cannot, I don't know why but i accept it.
Please accept that I can
see the existence of this life force and have done so all my life. I know where i am who i am and where i am going by the grace of Falun Gong I am going home.
Bye for now
Of course gods and spirits are magical. I.e walking on water, invisible spirit invading a body, etc. Certainly not natural.
No such thing as an ultimate super being. We exist in an infinite universe. Thus, there is always room for improvement. This is why we exist.
The force behind life is nature. No god required.
We are completely random. Required elements that have come together to create our existence. There is inevitability in probability. I've explained this in another post.
You THINK you can see a force. But then again, children think Santa Clause is real. Believing in Santa Clause makes children very happy. About the most you can hope for under these circumstances is false happiness.
EJ, so you think that random energy that creates life is not magic? There is no rationality in your concepts.
Post a Comment