The classical arguments for God – Part Two

Logical argumentation is to metaphysics and philosophy what mathematical theorems are to theoretical physics and cosmology. For instance, in the field of quantum mechanics, we have very little hard “evidence” for what we believe to be true, and we may never have observable evidence,  yet we do have theorems that prove it to be true, and the science works because of the theorems. 

Somewhat similarly, we cannot see the invisible world yet we have logically deductive reasoning to demonstrate the need for its existence. So, to dismiss logical evidence for “God” because we have no physical evidence is tantamount to dismissing the very methodological process we use for a lot of our scientific advancement.

Furthermore, as classical theists have argued, we must have a coherent ontology before we can develop a coherent theology. So, while this subject is a bit technical, it’s important for theists, if not just to understand that we do have a solid logical foundation for what we believe.

This very simplistic attempt to explain the classical theist argument from motion is based on deductive reasoning. And unlike other forms of reasoning, deductive reasoning contains a series of premises which reach a logically certain conclusion. If the premises are valid, the conclusion must necessarily be true.

In part one, we looked at Thomas Aquinas’s argument from motion. Here are the summary statements. You can read the explanation of each in part one.

  1. It is evident to experience that some things are in motion (actualization of a potential).
  2. Nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality except by something in a state of actuality; whatever is in motion must be put into motion by another (causation).
  3. An essentially ordered series of movers (in the here and now) cannot regress infinitely.
  4. Therefore, there must be an unmoved mover (First Cause/Prime Mover).

This Prime Mover is what theists understand to be “God.” As David Bentley Hart said:

“God is that reality which is unconditioned, that reality from everything else in our everyday experience derives its existence. Not really originating from some distant point in the past, such as the Big Bang, but conserving the existence of all conditioned beings at every moment in the here and now.” (From video, “Defense of Classical Theology” here.)

Of course, this is also biblical. Paul quotes the Athenian poets to affirm this understanding:

28 for in Him we live and move and have our being, as also some of your own poets have said, ‘For we are also His offspring.’ (Acts 17:28 NKJV, emphasis added)

“Motion” in this argument does not refer to change in spatial location or change in time; it means change in potency to actualization in any member of a causal chain in the here and now.

Remember our guitar music analogy (part one). The music is made up of fluctuating sound waves, which are “actualized” by the vibrations of the strings of the guitar, which is actualized by the musician plucking the strings. If any part of this causal chain is inhibited, the music ceases to exist.

And if the thing that put something into motion is not itself in motion, we have arrived at the unmoved mover (First Cause, Prime Mover).

The Prime Mover

Here are the logical requirements for the Prime Mover. I believe it will be clear why this is so in the explanation. The Prime Mover must be:

  • Pure Act (fully actualized).
    • Because the Prime Mover is the most fundamental source it cannot have any unactualized potentials.
  • Immutable (unchangeable).
    • Because it must be purely actual, it must be immutable or unchangeable.
  • Eternal, Immaterial and incorporeal.
    • Because matter exists in space and time, the Pure Act must be eternal (outside of time) and not made of matter (outside of space).
  • One, not many: the singular, ultimate source of all motion (simplicity).
    • “Because God [Prime Mover] cannot be dependent on other things which would include things that would be ingredient to its nature if he were composite. It would create a principle of unity, which would be a higher ontological principle than the God, because whatever allows for the disparate unity between disparate things is itself a more encompassing reality” (from Hart video interview here).

We will further develop the attributes of this Prime Mover later in this series of posts. Three considerations before we move on:

We see constant states of change (from potential to actual) in nature which is an undeniable aspect of our everyday experience.

There must be a Prime Mover. This is a logical certainty. We cannot have a causal series that creates an infinite regress. This is because nothing can be reduced from “potentiality” (what something can be) to “actuality” (what something is in reality) except by something already in a state of actuality. Otherwise, we would create a situation where everything in the causal chain would cease to exist.

We’re not making an argument for a particular God here. We’re showing that we need a first cause or Ground of Being (Prime Mover) that we call “God.”

Next time we will look closer at the Argument from Being and Essence.

Advertisements

About Mel Wild

God's favorite (and so are you), a son and a father, happily married to the same beautiful woman for 37 years. We have three incredible adult children. My passion is pursuing the Father's heart in Christ and giving it away to others. My favorite pastime is being iconoclastic and trailblazing the depths of God's grace. I'm also senior pastor of Cornerstone Church in Wisconsin.
This entry was posted in Christian apologetics and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

176 Responses to The classical arguments for God – Part Two

  1. john zande says:

    science works because of the theorems

    No. Science works because it *is* true, everywhere and every time. A theorem simply describes this truth. It is secondary to the material truth.

    As to the crux of the post: You seem quite determined to say philosophy proves the existence of a god.

    If this were true then one would EXPECT the majority of philosophers to be theists, in one shape, form, or another.

    This is not the case.

    The overwhelming majority of philosophers are atheists (72.8%).

    Your claim of it being “irrefutable” is simply fallacious.

    Indeed, the fact that nearly 73% of people who actually study this stuff as a matter of professional expertise REJECT IT demonstrates just how weak the logic is.

    • Mel Wild says:

      No. Science works because it *is* true, everywhere and every time. A theorem simply describes this truth. It is secondary to the material truth.

      And you should read the context. You are talking about the world of empirical science where something can be observed and tested. But, if you noticed, I was talking about theoretical physics and cosmology, not science in general. These work in theories that are proven by mathematical theorems, not empirically proven evidence.

      If this were true then one would EXPECT the majority of philosophers to be theists, in one shape, form, or another.

      Not necessarily true at all. Scientists and navigators followed Ptolemy’s geocentric system for 1,300 years and they were all wrong. It depends on a lot of other things besides the strength of the argument. Most philosophers do not study religious philosophy or classical philosophy. A classical example of this ignorance is Bertrand Russell who totally missed the point of Thomistic philosophy. There’s also many other factors that have nothing to do with the strength of the argument that I don’t want to go into here.

      But you can demonstrate the weakness of the argument itself if you wish, but saying a majority believes something is not a legitimate refutation. History has shown the majority to be wrong about most things.

      • john zande says:

        These work in theories that are proven by mathematical theorems, not empirically proven evidence.

        Again, not exactly true. All theoretical work is based on something first, such as the nature of black holes, which themselves were first predicted by general relativity (1915), which itself was only proven correct by Eddington in 1923. In this example, it was theorised that there would be the radiation leaking out of these gravity wells. This was proven true. It’s now called Hawking Radiation.

        The word games you’re presenting here start with imagination and never leave it. They rest on presuppositions.

        It depends on a lot of other things besides the strength of the argument.

        Your post is stating the argument is so strong it’s irrefutable. And I repeat, if this were the case then the majority of people who actually study this stuff in a professional capacity would, quite naturally, be theists.

        They’re not.

        73% reject the reasoning.

        • Mel Wild says:

          Your post is stating the argument is so strong it’s irrefutable…

          I said that it’s a logically deductive argument. If the premises are true, then the conclusion necessarily follows.

          You can refute it instead of going on and on about what everybody else thinks.

        • john zande says:

          *If* the premises are true.

          Well, off you go, move those enormous presuppositions from the “Presupposition File” into the “Factually Demonstrable File”.

        • Mel Wild says:

          You can prove the premises wrong instead of making unsubstantiated dismissals.

        • john zande says:

          You want me to prove YOUR presuppositions wrong?

          LOL!

          Please look up “Burden of Proof”

        • Mel Wild says:

          The argument is the burden of proof. The only thing you can do is argue against the premises.

        • john zande says:

          The argument is the burden of proof.

          A word game that rests on Special Pleading and outlandish presuppositions is “proof”?

          My apologies, but I must have missed the part where you proved the universe *is* artificial, and the part where you proved the universe *isn’t* aseitic.

      • john zande says:

        And just to add, only 14.6% are theists, while
        12.5% are ‘other’

        14.6%. That’s not exactly a ringing endorsement of an arguments strength, is it?

        • Mel Wild says:

          So what. What was the percentage of scientists who believed in Ptolemaic Geocentricism for 1,300 years? Not exactly a ringing endorsement for proving something by majority opinion.

        • john zande says:

          People have been playing with your presented word games for, as you have pointed out, for over 2,500 years.

          No discovery has made them more logically reasonable. In fact, the movement has been in the opposite direction.

        • Mel Wild says:

          Word games? Whatever… Let me know when you have something relevant to say.

        • john zande says:

          Let me know when you have something relevant to say.

          Well, given you’ve had 2,500 years to try and demonstrate the viability of these word games, that’s actually what I should say to you 😉

  2. KIA says:

    Pastor Mel, king of the false equivalency

  3. Good grief. Deductive reasoning has led me to conclude that 73% of atheists are paranoid, bombastic, incapable of logic, and have an inflated sense of self. Just saying. Feel free to prove me wrong at any time.

    “We see constant states of change (from potential to actual) in nature which is an undeniable aspect of our everyday experience.”

    I liked this. “Constant states of change” sounds a bit like an oxymoron. More Eastern philosophies and religions would call this “impermanence.” Something I am always amazed by, our very bodies are in a constant state of change, every cell being replaced continuously. About every 7 yrs or so,we are a completely new creature, in a literal sense. The moment blood flow stops in some part of the body, death follows, cells are unable to regenerate. We are in a constant state of change, set in perpetual motion, like a river, and the moment you take away that mysterious Prime Mover, decay begins.

    • Mel Wild says:

      LOL! I would never base anything I believe on what the majority believes!

      And great comments, IB. Thanks for actually getting it. The premises of this argument are based on what we actually can observe everywhere we look. We’re just taking it to its logical conclusion.

    • john zande says:

      If the logic is “irrefutable,” as Mel claims it is, then perhaps you can give me a rational explanation as to why 73% of people who look at this stuff as a matter of professional expertise fail to see the irrefutable logic of it?

      • Sheesh Zande, you sure put a lot of faith in “statistics” and people’s “alleged professional expertise.” I can’t think of two less reliable things to depend on when it comes to discerning the truth. There are “lies, damned lies, and statistics.” And second, professional expertise is often available for 3 easy payments of 19.95.

        Also, the subject of this post is classical theology. It is based on the deductive reasoning of rational people who had professional expertise in this area. At least 73% of us agree with it. So you are violating your own rules with your disagreement and your argument is incoherent.

        • Mel Wild says:

          IB, incoherence and irrelevance has never stopped Zande before. And when you can’t argue with the logic, you quote statistics. And I would venture to guess that almost 100% of those 73% are also committed materialists. Their position is not based on the strength of the argument but on the strength of their prior commitment to a dogma. It’s also not politically correct in the academic world to be a theist or believe in anything that goes back 2,300 years.

          G.K. Chesterton, when talking about disbelief in miracles, pretty much hit the nail on the head about why the unbelief in general:

          “Somehow or other an extraordinary idea has arisen that the disbelievers in miracles consider them coldly and fairly, while believers in miracles accept them only in connection with some dogma. The fact is quite the other way. The believers in miracles accept them (rightly or wrongly) because they have evidence for them. The disbelievers in miracles deny them (rightly or wrongly) because they have a doctrine against them.” (G.K. Chesterton, “Orthodoxy”)

        • john zande says:

          Their position is not based on the strength of the argument but on the strength of their prior commitment to a dogma. It’s also not politically correct in the academic world to be a theist or believe in anything that goes back 2,300 years.

          Yes Mel, I’m sure you’re right… It’s all one enormous “academic” conspiracy.

          I’m glad, though, that you mentioned the 2,300/2,500 years. It’s important as it frames this position of yours rather well.

          Imagine, if you will, a bright young chap proposing an intriguing hypothesis for something. It doesn’t really matter what. What’s important is that it was a hypothesis that, at least on paper, sounded quite compelling.

          So, an Abstract was written, and following the Abstract some justifications for the probable truth of the Abstract were published… and with that, efforts to prove this hypothesis began in earnest.

          Now imagine 2,500 years elapsing since the proposal was first suggested, and in those 2,500 years absolutely NOTHING was discovered to even remotely suggest the hypothesis was, in fact, true.

          This is not to say the hypothesis had lain dormant. It hadn’t. Generation after generation of bright people embraced the hypothesis and dedicated their entire lives to proving it true.

          However, despite every effort, after 2,500 years the only progress that could be shown was that from time to time someone had reviewed the Abstract and had changed the odd word or two here and there.

          100 generations of ardent work, and the needle had not been moved a single millimetre.

          Given this, why after 2,500 years of complete failure should anyone still suspect the hypothesis held merit?

        • Mel Wild says:

          Then I am sure you can easily disprove the logic of the argument.

        • john zande says:

          It starts with a presupposition.

          Or did I miss the part where you proved the universe *is* artificial, and the part where you proved the universe *isn’t* aseitic?

        • Mel Wild says:

          Presupposition? You mean like God doesn’t exist?

          As per the usual, you are not addressing the points of the argument. Let me know when you have something relevant to say.

        • john zande says:

          Ah, so you have nothing but an enormous presupposition and 2,500 years of utter failure in trying to demonstrate it as even vaguely plausible.

          So, right back at you: Do please let me know when you have something relevant to say.

        • Mel Wild says:

          It’s a logical argument, John Z. 2 +2 was 4 2,300 years ago, it still is. You can always refute the argument if you want.

          And utter failure? Right. So then, why is about 73% of the world population theists? And Pew Research said that number will go up by 2050. Shall we call that the atheist’s utter failure then? You see, I can make irrelevant and fallacious comebacks, too.

        • john zande says:

          Yes, utter failure. Or can you demonstrate that the universe is artificial?

        • john zande says:

          If you say so.

          So, are you going to address the actual question put to you?

  4. sklyjd says:

    “Somewhat similarly, we cannot see the invisible world yet we have logically deductive reasoning to demonstrate the need for its existence. So, to dismiss logical evidence for “God” because we have no physical evidence is tantamount to dismissing the very methodological process we use for a lot of our scientific advancement.”

    Unbelievable that you make this comparison, the invisible world in science uses more than deductive reasoning, it will only accept some measurable evidence that something exists. Scientists are not in the habit of claiming something exists without having some way of providing scientifically accepted reactions and processes as evidence from what is appears as an invisible entity.

    • Mel Wild says:

      First, I said it was “somewhat” similar. But there is a lot in advanced science that we have absolutely no empirical proof for. For instance, what is the multiverse hypothesis based on? Evidence? No, it’s based on math (and it’s not even based in deductive reasoning). We have no real idea if multiverses actually exist, but some cosmologists and theoretical physicists talk like they do exist.

      Second, your comparison is invalid. I wasn’t comparing science to science. I was comparing theoretical science to philosophical argumentation. Science can only deal with material phenomenon, it cannot not even address ontology or metaphysics for methodological reasons. So, “accepting measurable evidence” or “providing scientifically accepted reactions and processes” is not a valid comparison. It’s a category mistake. If you are making logical deductions about a non-material reality, you won’t ever be testing for it in a science lab.

      Third, logic is logic, and it’s a valid form of “evidence.” For instance, we know 2 + 2 = 4, even though it’s an abstraction by itself. But this same abstraction can help us develop theories and arguments that cannot be proven by natural science.

      • Nan says:

        Mel, what’s the difference?

        We have no real idea if multiverses actually exist, but some cosmologists and theoretical physicists talk like they do exist.

        We have no real idea if a supernatural god/creator actually exists, but some theologians and philosophy talk like it does exist.

        • Mel Wild says:

          Well, unlike with multiverses, we can logically deduce that God does exist, even though we can’t see Him or prove Him with natural science.

        • Nan says:

          Logically deduce??? C’mon Mel. There may be no actual evidence for multiverses … but neither is there actual evidence for a god. If you’re going to “logically deduce” one, then there’s no valid reason for a person not to do the same with the other.

          No matter how many posts you write and how much “evidence” you throw out to support your belief in a god, there will always be those who dispute it.

        • Mel Wild says:

          Logically deduce??? C’mon Mel. There may be no actual evidence for multiverses … but neither is there actual evidence for a god.

          That has nothing whatsoever to do with logical deduction. While we cannot see an immaterial “God,” we can see changes or things in motion in our everyday experience, as described in this post. It’s simply a matter of logical deduction to conclude that there must be a “prime mover.” You cannot say the same with the multiverse hypothesis. That was my point.

          And “actual evidence?” You seem to be implying scientific or physical evidence. But logical evidence is just as valid, especially when we’re talking about something that natural science cannot prove either way.

          No matter how many posts you write and how much “evidence” you throw out to support your belief in a god, there will always be those who dispute it.

          Of course, I totally agree. People will believe what they want to believe in the end. Believing or not believing in God, ultimately, has little to do with logic or evidence. Evidence and logic can only provide a framework for making a faith-based decision either way. Whether a person believes, or decides not to believe, is a heart issue. Again, science will never prove it either way.

        • Nan says:

          YOU were the one who said “logically deduce” — we can logically deduce that God does exist, I just picked up on your comment. And then you repeated it again in this last response … It’s simply a matter of logical deduction to conclude that there must be a “prime mover.”

          No. It’s not a matter of logical deduction. It’s a matter of faith. And no, I don’t have “faith” in science, so you can take that off the table. Although I admit that what science has presented about this world and the universe make more sense to me, this doesn’t mean it’s the end-all, be-all answer to life.

        • Mel Wild says:

          No. It’s not a matter of logical deduction. It’s a matter of faith.

          Care to explain to me how this argument from motion is a matter of faith and not a logical deduction?

        • Nan says:

          OK, so now you’re pushing philosophical perspectives. This is not a discussion I choose to undertake as I fully admit my knowledge in such is limited. My beef was strictly related to your use of words (this is my specialty. 😉) when you claim logical deduction to support your position but deny it in other cases.

        • Mel Wild says:

          I am claiming logical deduction here, Nan. Not with every position I take. Your beef is incoherent to me. Philosophy aside, either something is logical or it isn’t. You don’t need to be a mathematician in order to use math everyday of your normal life. It just seems silly to me to not have a reason for “being” (ontology). That’s why it’s important. Everything else we believe about our existence rests on its foundation.

        • Nan says:

          either something is logical or it isn’t. … which means it’s either based on known statements, events or conditions … or it’s not.

          Obviously, as has been proven on your blog multiple times, what you consider “known” is far different than what most non-believers consider as “known.”

          Let’s let it go at that, OK? 🙂 Have a good weekend.

        • Mel Wild says:

          Sure, we can let it go. I have no problem with that. But you haven’t told me how this argument is faith-based and not logically deductive. The premises are based on everyday conditions we know to be true in our common experience.

        • Nan says:

          Mel, I feel I made myself clear related to faith and logic. It you are unable to see the connection, there is obviously no point in continuing. Which is why I “signed off.” in my last comment. I’m not one to hash and rehash just to try and prove a point. We simply see things through different lenses.

        • Mel Wild says:

          No, you haven’t made yourself clear at all. You have not told me how this argument is faith-based. But you are free to believe whatever you want. We’ll let it go. Talk to you later.

        • John Branyan says:

          “either something is logical or it isn’t. … which means it’s either based on known statements, events or conditions … or it’s not.”
          No wonder she wants to “let it go”. She’s got no clue how logic works.

        • Mel Wild says:

          No wonder she wants to “let it go”. She’s got no clue how logic works.

          Exactly, which is probably why she thinks she made herself clear. But Nan’s not alone in this. It seems to be the normal M.O. of atheists who come here. Like in this instance, they don’t actually refute the argument at hand but engage in red herring fallacies, referring instead to some other point made in a different post that they feel more confident in addressing. Then they conflate the two…and voila! So, then they make incoherent statements thinking they are making a logical refutation. I see this a lot.

        • John Branyan says:

          The statement “let it go” is equivalent to “agree to disagree”. It’s what people say when they’ve got nothing of substance to offer. You can’t “disagree” with someone who hasn’t made an argument. Atheists want to “let it go” as if they’ve made some profound, irrefutable thesis that we’re just too stupid to understand. Nan’s description of “logical” is profoundly ignorant. What’s worse is that she’ll assume my assessment of her comments is a personal attack on her which justifies dismissing me as hateful.

        • Nan says:

          Mel, if you have something to say about my participation on your blog, I would prefer that you do it directly rather than discuss it in your comments with others.

          I do not care — nor am I qualified — to discuss “theological” matters with you. My point was strictly confined to your use of the term “logically deduce.” I thought I made that clear.

          Further, I am not an “atheist” and would request not to be referenced as same. My personal viewpoint on life is just that … my personal viewpoint.

          Thanks for your understanding.

        • Mel Wild says:

          I was answering John B.s comments and making an observation in general that seems to be common with this thread. But, again, you have neither refuted any point of the argument nor have you explained how this argument is not logically deductive. As you said, that was your assertion. So, if you’re going to make these kinds of statements you need to be able to defend them. Otherwise, don’t make them. So, again, your point was not clear.

        • John Branyan says:

          From time to time I check up on our atheist (or whatever they are) friends on their various blogs.
          You will not be surprised to learn that you are their favorite topic of conversation.
          You might have also noticed that the frequency of their comments has diminished of late. From what I surmise, I may be negatively impacting their participation in the comment section here. They’ve banished me from their blogs and it annoys them that I continue to speak freely here. You are much more polite than I am. My unpleasant demeanor rankles the ATHEISTS (or whatever they are). I do not mean to be contentious and I apologize if anything I’ve said is “out of bounds” from your perspective.

        • Mel Wild says:

          You will not be surprised to learn that you are their favorite topic of conversation.

          I’m glad I can give their blogs meaning and purpose.

          My unpleasant demeanor rankles the ATHEISTS (or whatever they are).

          Well, some who have come here have not only been unpleasant but combative, obstinate, making their snide comments, and it doesn’t rankle me at all. As I told them when they complain, I can see why some believers that have a history with them are curt with them. I try to stay civil and argue the points, but some of these “atheists”(identity unknown) have called me a liar, dishonest, disingenuous, etc. They have no problem with their personal attacks but think I’m attacking them when I point out their incoherent position.

        • John Branyan says:

          Nan, if you have something to say about my participation on Mel’s blog, I would prefer that you do it directly rather than discuss it in your comments with others.

          I am qualified to discuss “theological” matters with you, in fact, I think that’s the purpose of this comment section. My point was strictly confined to your statement, “either something is logical or it isn’t. … which means it’s either based on known statements, events or conditions … or it’s not.”

          Further, if you are not an “atheist” and would request not to be referenced as same. Please indicate your preferred title and I’ll reference you as same.

          Finally, it’s dumb to throw your opinions into the comment section and then say, “My personal viewpoint on life is just that … my personal viewpoint.” You made your personal viewpoint public when you commented.

          Thanks for your understanding.

        • John Branyan says:

          Boom! Bye, Nan!

          Prediction: This question will go unanswered.
          Atheism never provides answers.

        • Mel Wild says:

          Atheism and humanism hates logic because it only shows how untenable naturalism is as a worldview.

  5. Kind of fascinating to me, long before science understood germ theory, Jewish laws around cleanliness inadvertently embraced what has taken science so long to understand. We didn’t have microscopes to see the invisible world or the dangers of mishandling blood or anyway of understanding why something was considered unclean. For centuries many had to operate on faith alone and it actually made Jewish doctors more popular on account of the fact that they killed far less patients.

    I was just pondering the idea of refusing to wash my hands because I’ve yet to see any scientific evidence of these so called invisible germs y’all are talking about. Tragically that is exactly what people did for centuries and disease spread rapidly. Ironically, Jesus being born in a stable may well have been the safest way to ensure His survival as an infant. I don’t know what the statistics were, but we’ll just say about 73% of the professionals and their medical expertise turned out to be plain wrong.

    On the other hand, I guess as you are there dying of dysentery, you can always celebrate the fact that you stayed true to your own understanding and didn’t get any of that weird religious stuff on you.

    • Mel Wild says:

      And, as I already pointed out, 100% of scientists were absolutely wrong who embraced Ptolemaic Geocentricism for over 1,300 years. Of course, someone committed to the presupposition of materialism will do anything to avoid dealing with the strength of the argument itself. They will just quote statistics!

  6. Wow, what a party. I should come here more often 🙂

    So did anyone besides CliffsOfInsanity engage with the actual content of the post?

    • Mel Wild says:

      Welcome to the party! Did they engage with the content? Not really. Some complained that I said it was logically deductive, and my use of logic in general, but never actually refuted that either.

      • Interesting. You have said this already (in so many words), but I would think the easiest way to shut a theist up would be to actually refute the argument — do I ask too much? 🙂

        • Mel Wild says:

          I agree. But there’s the rub. You have to actually be able to refute the argument. So, yes, you’re probably asking too much. 🙂

        • john zande says:

          agree. But there’s the rub. You have to actually be able to refute the argument. So, yes, you’re probably asking too much.

          Been done a thousand times across numerous posts. Saying otherwise is, at best, being disingenuous.

          First, it commits the fallacy of composition. What’s true for a member of a group is not necessarily true for the group as a whole. This takes on particular relevance as you are making a statement about the behaviour/capacity of a set (our universe) of which we presently only understand 4.6%… which is to say, the baryonic stuff ONLY.

          Second, the special pleading associated to the (allegedly) unbreakable rules of causality (which you break immediately) evaporate at Inflation.

          Third, time is relative, not absolute, and causes and effects can happen simultaneously. Quantum entanglement proves this without violating the second law of thermodynamics.

          Fourth, the entire argument rests on an ENORMOUS PRESUPPOSITION that the universe is contingent; that it is artificial. Prove it.

          Fifth, and most pertinently, you have in the first instant annihilated the central premise of the argument by agreeing that there was never nothing; there was always something; there was, therefore, always motion. If there was never nothing, always something, always motion then it is NOT a question of why is there something rather than nothing for that is thoroughly meaningless, but rather what is aseitic: an unseen supernatural creator (who deliberately created an artificial world for reasons unknown), or the universe itself?

          As we have evidence the universe exists, and absolutely no evidence of magic anywhere, at any time, it is only logical to assume the universe is a brute fact.

          To spontaneously propose magic, when no evidence of magic exists anywhere, at any time, is a massive violation of Occam’s razor, and overkill as a fundamental basis of reality. It is, therefore, not only illogical, but comprehensibly irrational.

        • Mel Wild says:

          And you’ve refuted the Argument from Motion how?

          What premises have you proven false? Try to explain yourself without blathering on with all kinds of irrelevant and unrelated things you think are important (called a red herring fallacy, btw). You have never actually addressed the argument in the post.

        • John Branyan says:

          I asked the Windbag to link me to some contemporary philosophers who agree with him that the universe is a brute fact. Do you want to hazard a guess about how that worked out?

        • john zande says:

          Why am I not surprised that you simply pretend it hasn’t been refuted?

        • Mel Wild says:

          Okay, enlighten me. How did you refute it?

        • john zande says:

          Try reading for once.

          If there was never nothing then there was always something. The universe is a brute fact. You cannot have “nothing.” It is an imaginary state. It has never existed. “Nothing” is unstable (therefore already in motion), which makes the null situation a failed premise.

        • Mel Wild says:

          Try understanding the argument for once. If you ever bothered to understand you would know that an eternal universe has nothing to do with it. The universe is still something obviously in changing states (in motion) so it logically cannot be the prime mover.

        • john zande says:

          Mel, this argument is just another word salad of the first cause argument. Motion simply replaces Cause.

          No motion is not the default.

          If you can’t understand that then that’s your problem, not mine.

        • John Branyan says:

          You nailed him, JZ!
          NAILED HIM!
          “No motion is not the default.”
          No rebuttal for dogmatically asserted faith statements. Keep it up!

        • john zande says:

          If it helps, trying reading these words extra slowly: There was never no motion because there was never nothing.

          Correct me if I’m wrong, but this is actually what you believe, right?

        • John Branyan says:

          Don’t get distracted by trying to be rational, JZ. Just stick to faith statements. Your faith doesn’t need to be justified. Logic and reason are no match for bias and presupposition.

          Carry on! I’m rooting for you!

        • Mel Wild says:

          No, John Z, sorry, it’s your problem.

          Ontological motion is a logical deduction based on actual evidence from nature in the here and now (not time related or based on beginnings or no beginnings). Dismissing it as a word salad just shows your ignorance of the argument. Whatever is in motion (going from potential to actual) must either have a cause or itself be fully actualized. This is a logical certainty. As Hart said, it has to be something entirely unconditioned, that is not composite, not dissoluble into parts upon which it’s dependent, not a being among beings and therefore dependent upon some larger sphere of actuality, not temporal…as soon as you begin removing the attributes that make for contingency, you’re left with the question of the absolute that doesn’t make room anymore for things like matter.

          Laws and quantum events cannot be the prime mover either. They exist within realities that are themselves by the same logical calculus, contingent. Quantum events (or inflation, gravity, etc.) don’t happen in nothingness in the ontological sense. It just means you’re dealing with a prior physical state that is as of yet unarticulated (not actualized). But that physical state is not a logical necessary reality…it’s not a reality that can be considered an absolute.

          So, no, it’s entirely your problem. You have embraced an incoherent ontology.

        • john zande says:

          There was never no motion because there was never nothing.

          If you wish to refute this, then please demonstrate that there was once nothing.

        • John Branyan says:

          Boom!
          Shifting the burden of proof to Mel is an excellent strategy!
          You are conducting a clinic on fundamentalist debate tactics!
          Keep it up!

        • Mel Wild says:

          Yes, Zande is quite the dogmatic religious (scientism) fundamentalist. This is his favorite M.O. Don’t actually answer the question and then pose your own question and then claim victory.

          Seriously, I’m wondering if he’ll ever actually understand the argument. I won’t hold my breath.

        • Mel Wild says:

          There was never no motion because there was never nothing.

          And that is a total faith-based statement based on ZERO evidence, besides being totally irrelevant to the argument. You are making time-based argument, not an ontological one, which is itself contingent. It doesn’t matter how things began or didn’t begin. You have to refute the argument from motion in the here and now. So prove to me that the cosmos itself is nonmaterial, not composite and fully actualized in every way possible (not in motion).

        • john zande says:

          Evidence is the universe itself.

          Tell me again what evidence you have for the Middle Eastern god of the Pentateuch, Yhwh?

        • Mel Wild says:

          Evidence is the universe itself.

          Yes, and we can prove that the universe is composite, material, and in a constant state of motion. Try again.

          And, btw, I will ignore your red herrings.

        • john zande says:

          Exactly. There was never no motion.

        • John Branyan says:

          Yes! Assign your original thesis to Mel as if he actually said it!
          Drop the mic, JZ! You win!

        • Mel Wild says:

          Exactly. There was never no motion.

          Congratulations. You’ve just made the cosmos cease to exist! If there was never no motion, then we’re talking about an infinite regress. You cannot have an infinite regress of motion because everything is essentially ordered (causally dependent on a more fundamental source). To say that such a series regresses infinitely is to say that things in motion ultimately don’t derive their motive power from anything (because everything else is itself in motion). And if it doesn’t derive its power from anything then the whole causal chain collapses and everything ceases to exist.

          Even if the series could regress infinitely (which is logically impossible), something outside the series would still have to supply motive power. So, no, you have not refuted the argument, you only described a condition where nothing could continue to exist.

        • john zande says:

          There is no infinite regress in the universe as a brute fact. Don’t try and smuggle in false arguments.

          There was never no motion because there was never nothing. The argument is categorically meaningless.

          Which part of that are you having trouble with?

          Of course, you could always refute this by demonstrating 1) that there was once nothing, and 2) that this world is artificial.

        • Mel Wild says:

          There is no infinite regress in the universe as a brute fact. Don’t try and smuggle in false arguments.

          And you can prove this how? Again, prove this “brute fact,” John Z. All you give me are faith statements. IF things are in motion, then you must find a more fundamental cause, otherwise, you end up with infinite regress. So, show me how the universe itself is not in motion. I don’t accept your faith statements.

        • john zande says:

          IF things are in motion, then you must find a more fundamental cause.

          Is that so?

          OK then, so what is the fundamental cause of the Middle Eastern god of the Pentateuch, Yhwh?

        • Mel Wild says:

          Here we go…red herrings. Sorry, John Z. Stick with the subject at hand.

        • john zande says:

          You said, IF things are in motion, then you must find a more fundamental cause.

          *MUST*

          If it’s absolutely required, then please answer the question: What is the fundamental cause of the Middle Eastern god of the Pentateuch, Yhwh?

        • John Branyan says:

          Tell him the Pentateuch was fiction!
          Tell him the Pentateuch was fiction!
          Also…protozoa!

        • John Branyan says:

          “What caused God?” …an excellent question! Throw the infinite regression problem back at Mel. Good job! He probably won’t notice what you did. 😉

          Since Taboo isn’t here right now, I’ll say it for him: Bravo, sir!

        • Mel Wild says:

          OK then, so what is the fundamental cause of the Middle Eastern god of the Pentateuch, Yhwh?

          Now, you’re stooping to the confusion of Dawkins and his ilk. The question of who moved the “unmoved mover” is a rather fatuous question to ask since it’s asking, what moved that thing which cannot be moved.

        • john zande says:

          Oh, so it’s not actually required (as you asserted) because there was always something, never nothing.

          Exactly my point.

        • John Branyan says:

          Now tell him the Pentateuch is fiction!
          Also, tell him about protozoa.
          Then, just to make sure, tell him you help Ph.D. students write papers.

        • Mel Wild says:

          Oh, so it’s not actually required (as you asserted) because there was always something, never nothing.
          Exactly my point.

          Of course, there must be a “prime mover.” But you cannot prove that the universe is that prime mover and essentially necessary (this has nothing to do with time or if the universe had a beginning or not).

          What I said is that you cannot prove that the universe is not in motion. For it to be a prime mover, logically, it must be fully “pure act” or fully actualized in every way (immutable), it must be simple (no composite parts), eternal (transcends time), incorporeal and immaterial (existing outside of matter, space since they are contingent), for the reasons explained in the post itself. If you can prove that the universe meets all these logical conditions, you have an argument for your “god” (prime mover).

        • john zande says:

          But you cannot prove that the universe is that prime mover

          This is a patently absurd statement as NO prime mover is required. None. Your argument is categorically meaningless. Please stop repeating it.

          There. Was. Never. No. Motion.

        • Mel Wild says:

          This is a patently absurd statement as NO prime mover is required. None. Your argument is categorically meaningless. Please stop repeating it.
          There. Was. Never. No. Motion.

          Then we’re forced back to infinite regress and, therefore, nonexistence. And around the merry-go-round of incoherency we go. Sorry, no cigar. You are just making faith statements.

        • john zande says:

          Oh, so you believe there must be a fundamental cause for EVERYTHING?

          OK, perhaps then you’ll address this question now: What is the fundamental cause of the Middle Eastern god of the Pentateuch, Yhwh?

        • Mel Wild says:

          Oh, so you believe there must be a fundamental cause for EVERYTHING?

          No, I said there must be cause for everything that is in motion. And you cannot go into infinite regress or the whole causal chain would cease to exist (in the here and now). Again, the question of who moved the “prime mover” is a rather fatuous question to ask since it’s asking, what moved that thing which cannot be moved.

        • john zande says:

          Again, a categorically meaningless comment.

          There. Is. No. Prime. Mover. As. There. Was. Never. No. Motion.

        • Mel Wild says:

          And your statement is a meaningless comment with absolutely no logic or proof.

        • john zande says:

          Are you saying a causeless thing is illogical?

        • Mel Wild says:

          Are you saying a causeless thing is illogical?

          No, I’m saying that when you say there is “No. Prime. Mover. As. There. Was. Never. No. Motion.” You’re making a nonsensical and incoherent statement that is meaningless. You are actually arguing for nonexistence. Of course, if you can prove that your “god” (the universe) is fully actualized, not composed of parts, immutable, immaterial, and existing outside of space and time, you may have a coherent argument. Otherwise, you’re just wasting my time.

        • john zande says:

          So a causeless thing *is* logical.

          That’s what I’ve been saying.

        • Mel Wild says:

          Yes, if you can logically show that it is what’s been called a “prime mover.” But to just state that the universe is that prime mover is meaningless.

        • john zande says:

          Of course it’s meaningless… That’s also what I’ve been saying. There was no prime mover. There was never nothing. There was never *no motion*.

        • Mel Wild says:

          No, John Z. You don’t get it at all. To say there is no “prime mover” in the here and now, as defined, is incoherent nonsense. You are just arguing for an infinite regress which logically means we cease to exist.

        • john zande says:

          To say there is no “prime mover” in the here and now, as defined, is incoherent nonsense.

          Incoherent nonsense?

          Ah, so what then is the fundamental cause of the Middle Eastern god of the Pentateuch, Yhwh?

        • Mel Wild says:

          Incoherent nonsense?
          Ah, so what then is the fundamental cause of the Middle Eastern god of the Pentateuch, Yhwh?

          Yes, of course. You cannot have infinite regress and have the cosmos continue to exist. The “prime mover” is what we theists would call “God.” As I said in the post, this is not an argument for a particular God, only for the existence of what we would call God (prime mover). To say what caused the “prime mover” is a fatuous question, only showing that you don’t understand the argument. You are asking what moved that which cannot be moved.

          I’m not going to keep going round this merry-go-round with you. You obviously don’t wish to understand the argument.

        • john zande says:

          You cannot have infinite regress and have the cosmos continue to exist.

          Lucky for us then that there is no infinite regress in the universe as a brute fact.

        • Mel Wild says:

          Okay, believe whatever faith-based statement you want. You’re getting boringly obstinate now.

        • john zande says:

          No faith required in knowing the universe exists.

        • Mel Wild says:

          No faith is required to know the universe exists, but that’s never been the point. Which is why your point is irrelevant.

          It takes BLIND FAITH to believe that the universe continues to be the prime mover which holds all existence together. And THAT is a faith statement.

          Of course, if I were to take your faith statement as is, then you would be admitting that the universe is immaterial, immutable, not composite, and not in space and time. Then, of course, we descend into the ontological incoherency of atheism.

        • john zande says:

          The universe is a brute fact.

          Deal with it.

        • Mel Wild says:

          And you can’t prove it’s the fundamental force by which all things continue to exist.
          Deal with it.

        • john zande says:

          I don’t have to. It is only logical to assume the universe is a brute fact.

          You, on the other hand, haven’t even gotten up to the starting line without first demonstrating that this universe is artificial.

        • Mel Wild says:

          There was no prime mover. There was never nothing. There was never *no motion*.

          Whenever you say, “There never was” in your statement it only shows that you don’t understand the argument because you’re not even talking about the same thing. What you are arguing for, technically speaking, something “accidentally ordered” (chronological, in the past), which is not the same thing as the argument from motion, which is an essentially ordered (fundamental, in the here and now) argument. This is why your statements are meaningless and irrelevant (besides being incoherent).

        • john zande says:

          No, I’m not arguing for anything being “accidentally ordered.” Please don’t invent arguments and assign them to me.

          I’m saying the universe is a brute fact. Any allusion to a prime mover is categorically meaningless.

        • Mel Wild says:

          No, I’m not arguing for anything being “accidentally ordered.”

          Yes, you are. By appealing to time in the past you are, by definition, making an accidently ordered argument. This is not the argument for motion which is essentially ordered.

          I’m saying the universe is a brute fact.

          Yes, but that says nothing whatsoever to explain its continuing existence. Furthermore, you cannot prove that it’s the most fundamental cause of our continuing existence. That is, unless you wish to concede that it’s immaterial, immutable, not made of composite parts, and not in time and space. Otherwise, it needs a more fundamental cause in order to continue to exist.

        • Mel Wild says:

          Yes, you are.
          See, I can be childish, too, but I will just leave you to your incoherent faith.

        • john zande says:

          There was never no motion because there was never nothing. Your argument is categorically meaningless in the face of the universe as a brute fact.

        • Mel Wild says:

          Again, you are making an “accidentally ordered” argument (“never was” statement). Totally irrelevant. You obviously don’t get it (or want to get it). See you later.

        • Mel Wild says:

          Thank your for your lesson in mulish obstinance. Bye…

        • john zande says:

          Mirror, meet Melvin Wild. Melvin Wild, this is Mirror.

        • Mel Wild says:

          I’ve given you logical argumentation. You have just given me your “just so” statements that are irrelevant to the argument. So, no, it’s not a mirror.

        • john zande says:

          If you say so…

        • Mel Wild says:

          Again, let me know when you have something relevant to say.

        • john zande says:

          And you be sure to let me know when you’re starting with something that’s not an outlandish presupposition.

        • Mel Wild says:

          Presupposition? You mean like what you are insisting on? That the universe is the fundamental source of our continuing existence, fully actualized, immaterial, not composite, and outside of time and space? Haha…whatever. Have fun with your incoherence.

        • john zande says:

          The universe (of which we only really understand 4.6% of) existing is a presupposition?

          Interesting…

        • Mel Wild says:

          Totally irrelevant, again, (sigh) Good-bye.

        • john zande says:

          The fact of the universe existing is irrelevant?

          That’s even more interesting…

        • Mel Wild says:

          Yes, John, you’re just being obtuse now. It’s never been about whether the universe exists or not and you know it. So, yes, irrelevant to the argument.

          The only question that’s relevant is whether or not the universe that currently exists is ontologically in motion (which it obviously is), so it cannot be the Prime Mover, unless you’re willing to concede that it’s fully actualized, not composite, immaterial, and outside of time and space. Otherwise, go away. You’re just wasting my time.

          You see, this is how you waste people’s time with your fallacious rabbit trails.

        • john zande says:

          Actually Mel, it is about the universe existing, and as it is a brute fact then there was never no motion.

          Stop trying to force a magical pantomime on reality.

        • Mel Wild says:

          And to say “there was never no motion” is not only logically incoherent, it’s a faith statement, not a brute fact. This is just your pantomime on reality. You are the one insisting on believing in magic (it just is!)

        • john zande says:

          No, it’s logically coherent. You cannot have “nothing.” “Nothing” is an imaginary state. It has never existed. “Nothing” is unstable (therefore already in motion), which makes the null situation a failed premise.

          It’s really quite simple, and eloquent.

        • Mel Wild says:

          Again, the only coherent thing you can argue for is a prime mover. But if the universe is that prime mover, you’re saying it’s fully actualized, not made of composite parts, immaterial, and outside of time and space. THAT is neither eloquent nor elegant, it’s totally nonsensical.

          Otherwise, if it’s already in motion, as you say by faith, then it cannot be the prime mover because it is not fully actualized (which means, NOT in motion), but simply a distal member of the causal chain. That’s the brute facts. Deal with it.

        • john zande says:

          How many times do you want me to repeat this? Your prime mover is categorically meaningless in a non-contingent universe. You cannot have “nothing.” “Nothing” is an imaginary state. It has never existed. “Nothing” is unstable (therefore already in motion), which makes the null situation a failed premise.

          Your ENTIRE argument rests on the null hypothesis.

          Move on.

        • Mel Wild says:

          How many times do you want me to repeat this? Your prime mover is categorically meaningless in a non-contingent universe.

          LOL! No wonder you’re an atheist. Again, this is your ignorance showing. Your statement is totally incoherent! If you have no fundamental cause you have no universe at all. It ceases to exist, John Z. Got it? And besides, your entire argument rests on BLIND FAITH. You cannot prove anything you said and cannot even explain your own continuing existence.

          Oh, I will move on. I don’t like to go on and on with complete imbecility. But thanks for showing everyone how incoherent your argument is.

        • john zande says:

          The non-contingent universe does not need a cause. It is aseitic. This is true as there cannot be nothing.

          BTW, how are you going proving this universe is artificial?

        • Mel Wild says:

          Prove that the universe is not in ontological motion, not composite, immaterial, and outside of time and space. Otherwise, it’s contingent.

        • john zande says:

          The universe exists. I have no reason to believe it is artificial.

          If you wish to claim it is artificial then you better get busy trying to demonstrate that.

          Good luck.

        • Mel Wild says:

          The argument was never about “nothing from nothing,” so that’s a bogus response.

        • john zande says:

          There was never nothing, so you’re right. It was never about that, and neither was I ever arguining that.

        • Mel Wild says:

          No, you are wrong. You keep repeating an argument no one is making. No one is saying there was nothing from nothing. That is NOT the argument. There always IS a prime mover, otherwise, there is nothing existing at all, now or at any other time. The fact that you don’t get this is fascinating.

        • john zande says:

          No one is saying there was nothing from nothing.

          Exactly. There was never nothing. The universe is a brute fact.

        • Mel Wild says:

          And so you’re saying the universe is fully actualized (not in motion), not made of parts, immaterial, and outside of time and space? Right…Good bye.

        • john zande says:

          The universe is what it is.

        • John Branyan says:

          You didn’t say there is “a cause for EVERYTHING”.
          Don’t let Zande get away with that bogus assertion.

        • Mel Wild says:

          Exactly. He must be reading Dawkins and his ilk. These people never understood the argument.

        • John Branyan says:

          I’ve never been a fan of the “unmoved mover” label because it seems paradoxical (I guess because it is). Instead, I think of the Universe as a book. JZ’s question would be like asking, “What came before the front cover?”

        • Mel Wild says:

          I’ve never been a fan of the “unmoved mover” label because it seems paradoxical (I guess because it is).

          I understand. It is a paradoxical term. As you probably know, it’s just a way of explaining that there must be a most fundamental cause that cannot be reduced further to some outside motive force. So, to say there is no fundamental cause would be like saying there is no fundamental source for existence itself. Without this fundamental source the whole causal chain must collapse into nonexistence. This is a logical certainty, regardless of what we may think about it.

        • John Branyan says:

          Yep.
          In my experiences, the philosophical terms are usually too much for casual conversations. Saying, “unmoved mover” is like saying “angels dancing on the head of a pin”. People tend to dismiss it because they don’t think it’s important. And it might now be… Obviously, it’s not important to JZ. 🙂

        • John Branyan says:

          Reassert the premise even after it’s been demonstrated logically incoherent.
          Classic! I’m taking notes, JZ.

          Do you think this would be a good time to talk about the 13 billion-year-old protozoa or would it be better to insist that Exodus didn’t happen?

        • John Branyan says:

          Prediction: You will now have to “prove” your statement.

        • John Branyan says:

          I’m gonna side with JZ on this one, Mel.
          You’re still trying to use logic and reason. These are no match for fundamentalist dogmas.

    • Citizen Tom says:

      @dpatrickcollins

      You noticed that too?
      😀

  7. Pingback: The classical arguments for God – Part Three | In My Father's House

  8. Citizen Tom says:

    @Mel

    Trying to make certain I understand this.

    There must be a Prime Mover. This is a logical certainty. We cannot have a causal series that creates an infinite regress. This is because nothing can be reduced from “potentiality” (what something can be) to “actuality” (what something is in reality) except by something already in a state of actuality. Otherwise, we would create a situation where everything in the causal chain would cease to exist.

    I am trying to understand this statement. As near as I can figure out, the reason an infinitely long causal chain cannot work is because at every point in the chain there is a probability greater than zero of breaking the chain. If the chain breaks at any one point, then it ceases to exist. In an infinite chain, the probably that the chain breaks is 100 percent.

    Is that right?

    • Mel Wild says:

      I am trying to understand this statement. As near as I can figure out, the reason an infinitely long causal chain cannot work is because at every point in the chain there is a probability greater than zero of breaking the chain. If the chain breaks at any one point, then it ceases to exist.

      Tom, you’re right. If any part of the chain breaks you have no chain. The easiest way to look at it is if every member in the chain were to be dependent on a more fundamental cause, you end up with an infinite regress, which would be non-existence. There must be at the base of the chain a member who does not receive its motive power from anything but itself. Otherwise, every part of the chain collapses. The analogy of the guitar player in part two illustrates what I mean.

      • john zande says:

        And this fails because it commits the fallacy of composition. What’s true for a member of a group is not necessarily true for the group as a whole. For example: No atoms are alive, therefore nothing made of atoms is alive.

        It also fails because time is not absolute, and it has no direction.

        • Mel Wild says:

          And your comment fails relevancy, as per the usual. This argument has absolutely nothing to do with time or whether something is alive or not. You keep arguing for things “ordered accidently” (having to do with chronology or sequence in time), whereas this is ordered essentially (being, fundamental causation).

          If there are atoms, we must ask what gives the atom its motive force, not whether it’s alive or not.

        • john zande says:

          To repeat, your position fails because it commits the fallacy of composition. It fails also because time is not absolute, which your causal argument relies on. Quantum entanglement also ruins the ‘chain’ argument.

        • Mel Wild says:

          To repeat, your assertion is absolutely irrelevant. This argument has nothing whatsoever to do with time. Why don’t you try understanding the argument before making such ignorant comments.

        • john zande says:

          It does, actually, rely on time, Mel… and any reason why you’re not addressing the fallacy of composition which your argument commits?

        • Mel Wild says:

          Tell me how it relies on time then. Why don’t you explain the argument to me since you think it’s fallacious.

        • john zande says:

          The arrow of time: event A predates event B. Quantum entanglement proves this wrong.

          Naïve 13th Century thinking belongs in the 13th Century, not the 21st.

          And why are you ignoring the fallacy of composition your argument commits?

        • Mel Wild says:

          Irrelevant. You are making an accidently ordered argument (time related). Try again. You still haven’t demonstrated to me that you understand the argument at all.

        • john zande says:

          LOL!

          Priceless. Heads up, Mel, it is YOU, you dolt, who’re making the time-ordered argument. I’m telling you it’s fallacious.

        • Mel Wild says:

          Okay, explain to me how this argument is time-related.

        • john zande says:

          Good grief.

          So, let me get this straight: you’re *not* actually arguing that a causal chain is regulated by what goes first?

        • Mel Wild says:

          No. Not at all. It has nothing to do with sequential order in time. It has to do with what is more essential to its motive power. This argument works outside of time as well as in it.

        • Mel Wild says:

          Yes, face palm yourself, John Z. Because you don’t get the obvious point of this argument. You are the one who’s looking quite foolish here.

          Let’s remove time from the picture. Let’s say we have a quark in some dimension outside of time and space. We still must ask, what is the motive power behind this quark? Because it is obviously not fully actualized, it cannot move itself from potential to actuality without a motive force.

          So, while the argument works in time, it has absolutely nothing to with something sequentially ordered in time.

        • john zande says:

          Face palm X 1,000

        • Mel Wild says:

          Okay, now you’re wasting my time. I tried to explain it to you respectfully, but I see you are just being an obstinate fool. So, believe whatever idiotic thing you want, just don’t think for a minute (in time) that you understand the argument.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.