The Counter Arguments to the Prime Mover
Below I’m discussing the first of St Thomas Aquinas’s 5 ways to prove the existence of God - the argument from motion or the Prime Mover as it is commonly referred to - everything is set in motion by another - this chain cannot stretch back forever in time - so there must be a prime mover, a first cause - God in Thomas’s opinion. I’ve listed the common counter arguments to the prime mover and demonstrated why each counter argument fails - apart from one.
Perhaps I have missed a counter argument? Or maybe you don’t agree with my analysis? I would be interested to hear from folks…
The original text of St Thomas Aquinas is online at: http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm
1. We don’t Need a Prime Mover Because of Gravity
Two bodies at rest will move towards each other due to gravity - they can be each other's first mover - so a prime mover is not required. Examine this argument in more detail: imagine a simple universe with two particles only. The particles are currently in orbit due to gravity. Logically the particles cannot always have been in orbit - the universe is big - so the particles would once have been far apart. The particles cannot have ever been infinity far apart else they would never achieve orbit (?-1=? so they could never reach each other). So the particles have always been finitely far apart and must have moved a finite distance closer together until they were in orbit. As they moved closer, their closing speed would increase due to stronger gravity. That means we can trace back a finite period of time till a point where the particles were not moving towards each other.
But that means gravity was not operating at that time - what can have caused gravity to start operating? The only possibility seems to be the start of time - if we imagine gravity started operating due to some other change apart from the start of time, the question is what caused that change? And what caused the change that caused that change, etc… So the start of time is the only possible root explanation that avoids an infinite regress. The start of time then implies a timeless first cause - so this counter argument seems to lead back in, a roundabout way, to the same conclusion as the prime mover.
2. An Infinite Regress of Causes is Possible
This is plainly nonsense / wishful thinking: an example from pool. Imagine a perfect, frictionless pool table. The balls are all wizzing around - the balls will continue wizzing around for a potential infinity of time. We have no idea how long the balls have been wizzing around, but we can infer an initial state where the player set the white ball in motion; else all would be still - an infinite regress of motion is just not possible.
3. If Nothing Moves Without a Mover, Then the Prime Mover Needs a Mover too
If the prime mover / first cause is timeless then there is nothing logically or sequentially prior to the prime mover - so it in itself does not need a mover - it has ‘always’ existed beyond time. Existing ‘forever’ within past time is an impossibility - there would be no start to the period of existence so nothing could exist. So logically we are left with a timeless first cause as the only possibility.
4. Who Created the Prime Mover?
Similar to the previous counter argument, if the prime mover is timeless then it is uncreated. There is nothing logically before something that is timeless - ‘before’ is a temporal term and is not applicable to a timeless entity.
A timeless prime mover / first cause would be eternal and beyond time so beyond the constraints of cause and effect.
5. Virtual Particles Appear all the Time and Effect Each Others Motions
The universe has huge amounts of mass in it - virtual particles are so tiny they can’t move anything of significance. Virtual particles also respect the conservation of energy so they cannot result in the creation of permanent matter/energy - the sort of matter/energy required to cause an significant motion.
6. Time Maybe Circular
In this eternalist conception, the first movement is caused by the last movement - the Big Crunch causing the Big Bang.
But there appears to be something different about ‘now’ - we can tell the difference between past, present and future so ‘now’ must be distinguished in some way. Some sort of cursor or pointer to ‘now’ is required. What set the ‘now’ pointer in motion? It must have been set in motion by the Prime Mover.
7. Why Does the Christian God Correspond to the Prime Mover?
I agree with this counter argument: the prime mover demonstrates the need for something to move of its own accord, it does not demonstrate that the prime mover is the Christian God, is omnipotent (or anything else), merely that it moved of its own accord.
Is autonomous movement possible without intelligence? Automatons require an intelligent agent to create them. To be an uncaused cause clearly requires an internal driving force / self motivation, IE intelligence. If nothing in the universe is self-driven then what would be the result? There is gravity and the other forces but these just dumbly and deterministically attract/repel - long term, these all lead to equilibrium - isolated systems with no internal driver end up in equilibrium - the universe would surely be in equilibrium unless something (the first cause) is self-driven/intelligent. The expansion of the universe maybe an expression of this intelligence; without it we would be in equilibrium (the universe would be one big black hole).
Perhaps I have missed a counter argument? Or maybe you don’t agree with my analysis? I would be interested to hear from folks…
The original text of St Thomas Aquinas is online at: http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm
1. We don’t Need a Prime Mover Because of Gravity
Two bodies at rest will move towards each other due to gravity - they can be each other's first mover - so a prime mover is not required. Examine this argument in more detail: imagine a simple universe with two particles only. The particles are currently in orbit due to gravity. Logically the particles cannot always have been in orbit - the universe is big - so the particles would once have been far apart. The particles cannot have ever been infinity far apart else they would never achieve orbit (?-1=? so they could never reach each other). So the particles have always been finitely far apart and must have moved a finite distance closer together until they were in orbit. As they moved closer, their closing speed would increase due to stronger gravity. That means we can trace back a finite period of time till a point where the particles were not moving towards each other.
But that means gravity was not operating at that time - what can have caused gravity to start operating? The only possibility seems to be the start of time - if we imagine gravity started operating due to some other change apart from the start of time, the question is what caused that change? And what caused the change that caused that change, etc… So the start of time is the only possible root explanation that avoids an infinite regress. The start of time then implies a timeless first cause - so this counter argument seems to lead back in, a roundabout way, to the same conclusion as the prime mover.
2. An Infinite Regress of Causes is Possible
This is plainly nonsense / wishful thinking: an example from pool. Imagine a perfect, frictionless pool table. The balls are all wizzing around - the balls will continue wizzing around for a potential infinity of time. We have no idea how long the balls have been wizzing around, but we can infer an initial state where the player set the white ball in motion; else all would be still - an infinite regress of motion is just not possible.
3. If Nothing Moves Without a Mover, Then the Prime Mover Needs a Mover too
If the prime mover / first cause is timeless then there is nothing logically or sequentially prior to the prime mover - so it in itself does not need a mover - it has ‘always’ existed beyond time. Existing ‘forever’ within past time is an impossibility - there would be no start to the period of existence so nothing could exist. So logically we are left with a timeless first cause as the only possibility.
4. Who Created the Prime Mover?
Similar to the previous counter argument, if the prime mover is timeless then it is uncreated. There is nothing logically before something that is timeless - ‘before’ is a temporal term and is not applicable to a timeless entity.
A timeless prime mover / first cause would be eternal and beyond time so beyond the constraints of cause and effect.
5. Virtual Particles Appear all the Time and Effect Each Others Motions
The universe has huge amounts of mass in it - virtual particles are so tiny they can’t move anything of significance. Virtual particles also respect the conservation of energy so they cannot result in the creation of permanent matter/energy - the sort of matter/energy required to cause an significant motion.
6. Time Maybe Circular
In this eternalist conception, the first movement is caused by the last movement - the Big Crunch causing the Big Bang.
But there appears to be something different about ‘now’ - we can tell the difference between past, present and future so ‘now’ must be distinguished in some way. Some sort of cursor or pointer to ‘now’ is required. What set the ‘now’ pointer in motion? It must have been set in motion by the Prime Mover.
7. Why Does the Christian God Correspond to the Prime Mover?
I agree with this counter argument: the prime mover demonstrates the need for something to move of its own accord, it does not demonstrate that the prime mover is the Christian God, is omnipotent (or anything else), merely that it moved of its own accord.
Is autonomous movement possible without intelligence? Automatons require an intelligent agent to create them. To be an uncaused cause clearly requires an internal driving force / self motivation, IE intelligence. If nothing in the universe is self-driven then what would be the result? There is gravity and the other forces but these just dumbly and deterministically attract/repel - long term, these all lead to equilibrium - isolated systems with no internal driver end up in equilibrium - the universe would surely be in equilibrium unless something (the first cause) is self-driven/intelligent. The expansion of the universe maybe an expression of this intelligence; without it we would be in equilibrium (the universe would be one big black hole).
Comments (83)
Consider the possibility that this ‘intelligence’ is simply a fundamental capacity to relate: to be aware, to connect and collaborate.
Our experience with reality suggests that all things eventually arrive at equilibrium unless there is some form of intelligent agent to prevent that happening. Even ‘stable’ orbits decay slowly due to gravitational radiation - nature, if left to itself, results in gravitational equilibrium - one big black hole - complete stillness is the only form of indefinite length steady-state existence possible - hence a prime mover seems to be required.
Quoting Possibility
In nature, at the macroscopic level, all things that happen are caused by some agent. At the microscopic level, conservation of energy is respected by the tiny natural fluctuations that occur so nothing of any note can result. So I think that the english language reflects reality - actions require an agent to accomplish them.
Quoting Possibility
To be aware, to connect and collaborate are all signs of intelligence.
Although this isn't a scientific answer, kindly consider it.
What lays in front of us, in the "future", always? The unknown.
Life has a will to discover and explore. Curiosity, questioning.
Although this may end up bringing the question, "is this will the prime mover?"
But think about it, the very fact that we're asking this, that we're questioning, that I'm offering my argument, comes from curiosity and questioning, the basic and primal need to learn the unknown.
Every question in life leads to another question. Every answer is followed by more questions. There is no truth, there is only continuity and development, that is based on wonder and curiosity.
What we know now will change with time, because everything, all of reality, is constantly developing, though one mean: Learning the unknown, curiosity, even now, these very moments, we are questioning what we know, and I believe that in a million years from now, we'll still question what we "know". :)
Yes, fear of the unknown has always been a prime mover.
(Self)consciousness created the fear of not knowing.
The development of human knowledge is interesting to consider. If we travel back a few 1000 years, maybe we could guess that 50% of what we then thought was wrong. Today, thanks largely to science, maybe only 25% (?) of what we believe is wrong. Step forward in time a few 1000 years and maybe only 10% of what we will then know will be wrong. The trend of improving accuracy of our knowledge is clear, but at no point in the future will we ever be able to say 100% of what we know is correct... our knowledge tends to but never reaches perfection, so ultimately we will be frustrated in our quest for absolute knowledge.
What you're not considering is that knowledge is based on reality, and reality, along with us, is constantly evolving. Therefor the more time goes on, the more we learn and the more there is to learn.
We can never reach to the extent of absolute knowledge because reality itself, along with us, is constantly evolving.
The only knowledge is questioning what is, for any answer we reach will eventually change and evolve with time.
In other words, in my opinion, there's always the same amount of knowledge to learn, no matter where we are in time, because we, along with reality and life, are evolving at the same pace :)
But there is only one set of facts to learn about the origin of all things - it is a closed set of facts that does not grow with time - so I hope you can see the argument that we will get successively more certain but never reach absolute certainty on these sorts of questions.
The unknown is infinitely large, so our knowledge thereof is infinitely small.
Aquinas, as Bertrand Russell pointed out, never tired of writing arguments for every aspects of his Catholic God, no matter how weak
I understand that photons are tiny packets of energy that are emitted by energised atoms when an election in a high energy orbit falls back into a normal orbit. This happens during various sorts of reactions (chemical, nuclear, etc).
A photon is a massless particle so is not effected by gravity according to Newton. Einstein's work however indicates that gravity is actually due to distortions in spacetime and as such photons are effected by gravity as well. This is why a black hole is possible, the curvature of spacetime is so extreme that not even photons can escape. But under less extreme scenarios, photons appear to be unaffected by gravity and travel in straight lines.
Photons are strange because they travel at the speed of light because they have no mass and so do not experience the passage of time. They also experience another relativistic effect call length contraction - at the speed of light distances are compressed down to zero. Photons appear to have motion from our perspective but if it were possible to see things from a photon's perspective, it might seem as if it can travel anywhere in the universe in no time whilst covering no distance.
The prime mover argument is all about massive objects so how do photons fit in? Well they do have some momentum so they can interact with massive objects to cause their motion. And their production is caused some sort of reaction involving matter. Einstein says E=mc^2 so energy is equivalent to matter, so maybe we could think of the prime mover argument as being about matter and energy rather than just matter only and being about momentum rather than movement.
So maybe the prime mover argument could be restated so as to include photons:
We look around us, we see matter/energy with momentum, but matter/energy must have a source of its momentum and the source must itself have another source of its momentum. But these chains of sources cannot proceed out to infinity else there would be no first/ultimate source of momentum in the universe and all would be still, so there must be a prime momentum that is the ultimate cause of all momentum in the universe.
The Big Bang obviously is a candidate for this ‘prime momentum’.
Russell's counter argument against Aquinas was surprisingly weak for such a clever guy, he said the five ways:
"depend on the supposed impossibility of a series having no first term. Every mathematician knows that there is no such impossibility: the series of negative integers ending with minus one is an instance to the contrary.” (Russell 1969, 453)
That's lame. Aquinas was talking about cause and effect and as everyone know, the effect depends on its cause to give it existence. If we look at the series of negative integers:
{ ..., -5, -4, -3, -2, -1 }
We can see it is possible to write these out if we start at -1 and work backwards. It is however impossible to start writing at '...' and generate the rest of the series - that is because there is no first term in the series and the following terms depend upon the previous terms in the same way the effects are dependant on the causes. If there is no first term, there is nothing.
Quoting Gregory
If we imagine a universe with no start of time and just gravity, then though the mechanism of gravity (and orbital decay), a huge black hole is the only possible result - gravitational equilibrium - leading to thermodynamic equilibrium eventually due to the working of Hawking Radiation. We do not live in such a universe, so we can conclude that one of the following must hold for our universe:
- There is a start of time
or
- Some permanent, self-driven entity has always existed that has kept us out of equilibrium.
Both are IMO indicative of an intelligent, timeless, prime mover.
Those who try to prove the existence of God are weak in faith. Edward feser comes to mind
What makes you believe:
- Gravity applies to a meta universe / multiverse
- Hawking radiation does not
The 2nd is an inevitable result of the first? Besides, even if there is no such thing as Hawking radiation, infinite time + gravity = gravitational equilibrium, which we are not experiencing, so my argument above still seems to hold.
Quoting Gregory
"My point of view is different. My own point of view is that you can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God. Science is based on what is testable, reproducible, and falsifiable. That’s called science. However, there are certain things that are not testable, not reproducible, and not falsifiable. And that would include the existence of God ... I don’t think there’s any one experiment that you can create to prove or disprove the existence of God. Therefore, it’s not a falsifiable statement. You cannot create an experiment that disproves the existence of God. Therefore, it’s a non-falsifiable statement." - Michio Kaku
https://innotechtoday.com/michio-kaku-clears-god-discovery/
I would agree with the above that belief in God is a non-scientific belief if you use the traditional definition of God (infinite, omnipotent, omniscience, etc...). I personally use a more limited, deist, definition of God - just some form of intelligent agent that was responsible for the creation of the universe - no wild claims of infinite powers.
Is it possible to ever formulate an experiment that would prove or disprove the existence of such an entity? Maybe you can do so at home: take a hamster cage, note that with a hamster in it, the cage stays out of equilibrium. Remove the hamster from the cage, the cage enters equilibrium. The cage is of course a metaphor for the universe and the hamster a metaphor for God. But I doubt this meets scientific standards of rigour so I'd agree the existence of even a deist God is likely to remain a non-scientific question.
Quoting Gregory
I have no faith; I'm agnostic leaning towards deist.
Exactly. General physics laws can be used to show how a meta-universe might work. They are speculation, but show an alternative to theism or deism
The only meta-universe / multiuniverse theory I have any familiarity with is ‘Eternal Inflation’ - the current favoured model amongst cosmologists. It’s a sort of misleading name, because it sounds like it’s been going on forever - it should actually be called ‘Future Eternal Inflation’ - all the models they have come up with so far have a definite start to them (pre Big Bang obviously) I believe.
The theory starts off with no universes at all, just a small amount of repulsive gravity material which expands very rapidly due to its own gravitational repulsion whilst retaining a constant density. Conservation of energy is respected as the increasing negative energy of the gravitational field is exactly offset by the increase in mass (=positive energy). This expanding patch generates all of the universes in the multiverse.
But Eternal Inflation theory does not explain how the initial patch of anti-gravity material comes about. Speculative ideas about this are that quantum fluctuations somehow created the anti-gravity material. Most of the leading theorists like Guth also believe that time has no start.
To my mind this is not satisfactory - if natural mechanisms like quantum fluctuations can be the cause of eternal inflation and past time is infinite then we should expect an infinite number of instances of eternal inflation - an infinite number of overlapping multiverses - and an infinite matter density to go with that - which is not what is observed.
1. 'Is there a God?'
2. 'Was the universe created by an intelligent agent?'
The first, bearing mind the received/traditional definition of God, cannot be said to be subject of science. The second, however, does seem to fall within the remit of science. But science (cosmology) seems to ignore the 2nd possibility... the models and theories I read about are purely mechanistic. That seems a mistake on the part of science. On the face of it, there is quite a high probability that the answer to the 2nd question is yes so it would seem prudent for science to invest quite a high percentage of its efforts in developing models that are compatible with an affirmative answer to the 2nd question.
Is it? Apart from imaginary billiard tables, why? And also - think of it the other way round - if at some future point, all the particles in the universe were to stop moving there were no further change - what could possibly set it going again? So absent the assumption of a "Prime Mover", is there actually any compelling reason to imagine that reality has ever done anything other than continually change...forever before?
An infinite regress of causes has no first or ultimate cause, so it's a simple matter of induction to show that the whole of such sequence cannot exist. See:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/360708
Quoting Siti
Perpetual motion without a prime mover is an impossibility. See:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/360714
:nerd: I think actually understood most of what you said. However, as we experience three-dimensional reality, comprehending "Photons are strange because they travel at the speed of light because they have no mass and so do not experience the passage of time. They also experience another relativistic effect call length contraction - at the speed of light distances are compressed down to zero. Photons appear to have motion from our perspective but if it were possible to see things from a photon's perspective, it might seem as if it can travel anywhere in the universe in no time whilst covering no distance." seems impossible.
How can it travel and be here and there at the same time? I know you explained that but my brain is being very stubborn and says "don't go there, because if you grasp that explanation you will be insane". :lol: It might feel a whole lot safer to understand it through math, but I have not developed the ability to do that. How is it known that a photon "experiences the effect call length contraction"? Yeah, perhaps knowing how scientists come up with that notion, will help me comprehend it? Grasping "at the speed of light distances are compressed down to zero" is not comprehensible to me. :chin: Zero is before the big bang? Oh my, back to the question of prime mover. :worry: If the prime mover ran out of energy it would slow down and everywhere there was nothing, everywhere there would be something.
I am afraid I am not a physicist, but I will try to explain the bits I understand. Please forgive me if there are any mistakes... it is not my field.
In Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity it is assumed as an axiom that the speed of light is constant for all observers, regardless of motion. We have many experimental results that indicate that Einstein’s axiom is correct.
Time dilation is then usually explained with light clocks - these fire a beam of light at a mirror and the light bounces back to a detector. So you can imagine a stationary light clock, the beam travels perpendicular to the beam source, is reflected back along a perpendicular path to the detector and that counts as one ’tick’ of the light clock.
Then imagine a second light clock, this time moving to the right relative to you. Imagine the path the beam of light would take from your perspective - it would not be straight up and down anymore, instead, the beam would set off at a slight angle to the right, be reflected at a the mirror at a slight angle and return to the detector - tracing out an acute triangle shape.
But the speed of the beam would be the same because the speed of light is constant for all observers. Therefore because the beam of light has to take a longer path, it would take slightly longer from your perspective for the beam to travel from emitter to the mirror and back again (because the beam is tracing out a triangular rather than perpendicular path).
So from your stationary perspective, a stationary light clock ‘ticks’ faster than a moving light clock - meaning presumably that time is somehow running slower for the moving clock.
Then you can imagine light clocks moving relative to you at increasingly faster speeds, with increasingly slower ticking - as movement of the clocks speed up, the path the beam takes becomes more and more horizontal from your perspective - a flatter and flatter triangle shape is traced out.
Finally, imagine a light clock that is moving to the right relative to you at the speed of light. Now the beam is moving at the speed of light to the right but the clock is also moving at the speed of light to the right. The beam will therefore never hit the mirror on the detector so, from your perspective, time is not passing for a light clock moving at the speed of light. This is why it's said that the photon is a timeless particle - it travels at the speed of light so it can travel any distance in seemingly no time.
Quoting Athena
I believe that a prime mover must be something from beyond time. So temporal terms, such as running out of something, would not apply to such an entity.
Quoting Devans99Motion with a prime mover is is not perpetual...but really the evidence suggests that perpetual motion is exactly what we see - if you want to convince me otherwise, you just have to name one thing (just one) that is not moving right now.
Just because you can imagine something, does not mean it could have physical existence. I can imagine a square circle but it cannot exist. Likewise anything with the structure of the (infinite) negative integers cannot exist in within time. Please consider the argument given in this OP:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/6218/the-universe-cannot-have-existed-forever/p1
Quoting Siti
It does not, to see so, consider the following reasonable statement:
Everything that exists in time has a cause.
Quoting Devans99Egg zackly! And to be a cause of a physical effect, one has to exist in time n'est-ce pas? Do you know of any cause that exists "not in time"?
How can you contend that the universe / any system / a process does not have states? If a system has no states, it would not exist as a system - it would just an endless sequence of nothing.
I am not moving so I am in a state - movement is relative. And it does not matter if things are moving or not, they are still in states - we can take any subdivision of time and call it an approximate state - and any approximate must have a prior approximate state, else it could not exist.
Quoting Siti
I think you are missing the point: everything that exists in time has a cause. Nothing can be causeless and nothing can be the cause of itself. Therefore there must be something that exists outside of time... the prime mover I think we have to assume.
...systems do not jump from state to state - that's really what Zeno's arrow paradox shows - arrows don't jump from state to state in space, they fly continuously through space - they process continuously... obviously our descriptions can't match that because we would have to have an infinite set of descriptions with infinitesimal graduations for every aspect of reality - the arrow hitting the target does not depend on any previous "states" of the arrow, it depends on the process of its flight, which is potentially (potentially mind you) describable (describable mind you) by any number of an infinite array of imaginary "states" (i.e. momentary - actually 'timeless' - locations and velocities). The locations and velocities are not real - but the flight (i.e. the process) is real.
Quoting Devans99
Right - two of Aquinas' premises. Ergo - there can be no uncaused cause - right! And who says nothing can be the cause of itself? What does that really mean?
This is the main problem with Aquinas' logic (and Lane Craig after him) - the argument basically goes:
P1 there can be no uncaused cause
P2 nothing can be self-existing
Therefore there must be a self-existing uncaused cause
That would certainly rank as an epic fail in a Logic 101 exam.
How can the universe not be a state? All the particles involved always have well defined positions and velocities. This constitutes a state and that state must of evolved from a previous state. From this we can determine the requirement for an initial state - an initial set of positions and velocities of the particles - else everything in the universe would be undefined - the universe would have no initial positions and velocities and therefore no subsequent positions and velocities. It is a simple matter: if the initial positions/velocities are UNDEFINED, all subsequent positions/velocities are UNDEFINED. Any mathematical operator combined with UNDEFINED yields UNDEFINED.
My favourite analogy is a perfect, frictionless pool table. The balls are all wizzing around - the balls will continue wizzing around for a potential infinity of time. We have no idea how long the balls have been wizzing around, but we can infer an initial state where the player set the white ball in motion; else all would be still.
Quoting Siti
The (possible) continuousness of nature is no excuse for there being no initial state - the arrow hitting the target depends on the initial state of the arrow being set in flight by the archer, be it a continuous process or otherwise.
I also think you are making assumptions that you cannot prove: matter is discrete and electrons are known to perform a quantum jump from orbit to orbit without passing through any intermediate states - we have no proof of any continuous processes in the universe.
Quoting Siti
You say I fail Logic 101 yet you offer no alternative solution:
1. It is clear that nothing can exist permanently within time.
2. It is also clear that everything in time requires a prior cause.
I see no other option but a recall to a timeless 'something' that is the ultimate cause of everything.
If you disagree, what is your solution that encompasses axioms [1] and [2] above?
Quoting Devans99I don;t have a solution that encompasses both of your premises because I would challenge the first premise...
First of all, how do you know that nothing can exist permanently within time? How can you even define "exist" without reference to time? What is the meaning of "permanently" apart from any notion of time? And in any case, if time began with BB, how do you know it will not also end with the Big Crunch (or whatever happens at the end of the process of the universe)? And if that is the case, would it not be true to say that the universe has itself existed (and will continue to exist) permanently throughout time?
So maybe we need to think about how your first premise is formulated because as it stands it is neither a self-evident axiom nor a testable hypothesis - and given that the universe has apparently been in existence since the "beginning of time", is still in existence now, and is giving every indication that it will continue to exist until "the end of time" - it is quite possibly just wrong.
So how about we say:
1. The universe does indeed exist permanently (it perdures, is a perduring process) within time
2. Everything in the universe requires a prior cause
Therefore, the cause of everything in the universe exists within the universe.
Of course that's not telling us very much - except that there is no need for "the work of an Almighty hand" to cause "the radiant orbs" to "move round the dark terrestrial ball" - they do it all by themselves - as far as we can possibly tell.
Because it would have no start / no initial state and therefore no subsequent states so could not exist. Also, you might consider the arguments against the possibility of past infinite time I give here:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/360596
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/360410
Quoting Siti
Your formulation leads to an infinite regress of causes into the past with no first/ultimate cause. Thats impossible - the cause of everything has to be external to time.
"For he spoke, and it came to be; he commanded, and it stood firm" - Psalm 33:9
But the first cause has to be causally efficacious in our material world - a purely spiritual first cause seems impossible - how could it 'talk' a universe into existence? The first cause must be able to interact with matter/energy - so it must be composed of some form of substance (some form of matter/energy).
The BB suggests that spacetime began 14 billion years ago and the cause of this beginning must be eternal to spacetime - so made of a substance from from beyond spacetime.
But how can you prove logically that it is "impossible"? Just because someone - even someone as smart as Aquinas - can't get their head around it doesn't prove its impossible. So far all you and Aquinas and Lane Craig and...the Lord knows how many others who have attempted to make this argument in various ways...have done is to declare that an infinite regress is impossible...maybe it is, maybe it isn't - but you can't prove it. Neither can you disprove perpetual motion - you have failed several times already to name one thing in the entire history of the universe that is not continually moving. We have absolutely zero evidence for anything not moving - heck, according to the most recent science, even space itself is in "motion" - expanding...into? What?
Anyway, can you please provide a logical argument for the impossibility of an infinite regress and then you will have at least one premise for the Prime Mover argument. So far I can't see there any premises on which to base the argument.
We have no examples of infinite causal regresses from nature we can examine, so let's examine a finite causal regress. So for example, a car: the driver presses the accelerator pedal, more gas is fed into the cylinders and the car accelerates. If the first cause (driver presses the accelerator pedal) is taken away, does the car still accelerate? No. So if you take the first cause away from a finite causal regression, the rest of the regress disappears. By definition, an infinite causal regression (into the past) has no first cause - so none of the subsequent causes in the regression exist. The existence of an infinite causal regression is therefore impossible.
A belief in the possibility of an infinite causal regress is equivalent to a belief in magic.
Quoting Siti
The natural end to any form of dumb gravitational perpetual motion is everything ends up in a black hole due to gravity and orbital decay. Then the black hole evaporates due to Hawking radiation, resulting in a sea of pure energy - thermodynamic equilibrium. So our universe cannot have been in perpetual motion because we would be in thermodynamic equilibrium now. Also see Wikipedia:
"Perpetual motion is motion of bodies that continues indefinitely. A perpetual motion machine is a hypothetical machine that can do work indefinitely without an energy source. This kind of machine is impossible, as it would violate the first or second law of thermodynamics."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion
Well that gets back to - who was it - Russel's (?) - counter argument...there is such a number as -1 (yes?) so in the series of negative integers, what is the first? Answer: there isn't one...the series is infinite, there is no first term, but all the other terms are still there - there is still a -456, and a -217 and -1...right?
So that was my original objection to your argument, and infinite regression does not mean that all the "subsequent" (to what?) causes don't exist, it simply means there is no "first" cause. To use that as an argument in favour of a first cause is self-defeating because it is a circular argument...essentially you are arguing that since there cannot be any cause effect sequence without a first cause there must be a first cause. But you still have not proved that there cannot be a "turtles all the way down" infinite regress of causes. Your argument still lacks a premise.
On the perpetual motion thing - since you are now resorting to using words like "dumb" and quoting Wikipedia, I can only assume that you have not yet thought of anything in the history of the universe that was not/is not moving? Right?
Discussed here:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/360708
Quoting Siti
I'm not sure what to say - I've explained it as clearly as possible - including an example a child could follow - I give up. You will just have to continue onwards with your belief in magic.
Quoting Siti
I do not see what the lack of a still object demonstrates?
Things are moving in the universe because of the Big Bang - the very fabric of space is expanding - which is most unnatural - it is keeping us out of equilibrium. Very special conditions are needed to avoid equilibrium - and this unnatural expansion provides that. It was IMO engineered by the intelligence that created the universe.
Okey dokey then! We've progressed from "dumb" and Wikipedia, to "child" and "magic"...and still no logical argument establishing the claimed impossibility of an infinite regress. I am beginning to lose hope!
If we see the eternal series as staccato/discrete, each segment/set would have its own prime mover. If the motion of the eternal universe is continuous, some of us think there may still be an eternal motion of orbit, which could have given motion and thus life to the eternal series. Union of different moving parts gives variety, and the form of matter (and emptiness) gives the brain life. There is the old Chinese parable that the hole makes the cup. So perhaps with the brain and its trillions of internal shapes.
"We can no longer know of nature whether what seems to have being per se is not in fact a chance accident. What bears the imprint of a confused or immature feeble structure, barely evolving from the stage of elementary indeterminateness, cannot even claim to be described." Hegel
I have already given you several logical arguments. To reference the last I gave, your ‘belief’ in the possibility of an infinite regress of causes is akin to believing that a car can accelerate without the driver pressing the pedal down - how do exactly do you justify such a belief?
Here is the basic argument I gave, this time expressed as an induction proof:
1. If there is no first cause
2. Then there can be no second cause (because the 2nd cause is caused by the first cause)
3. Likewise, if there is no second cause, there is no third cause
4. And so by induction out to infinity, there can be no current causes in the universe
5. So nothing exists.
Do you see any flaws in the above logic?
The rest of the quote from Wikipedia:
[i]"Perpetual motion is motion of bodies that continues indefinitely. A perpetual motion machine is a hypothetical machine that can do work indefinitely without an energy source. This kind of machine is impossible, as it would violate the first or second law of thermodynamics.
These laws of thermodynamics apply regardless of the size of the system. For example, the motions and rotations of celestial bodies such as planets may appear perpetual, but are actually subject to many processes that slowly dissipate their kinetic energy, such as solar wind, interstellar medium resistance, gravitational radiation and thermal radiation, so they will not keep moving forever.”[/i]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion
I wonder if it's possible for god to blasheme?
Yes.
Yes I see flaws in your logic.
I am not sure what bearing the discrete/continuous nature of the universe has on the need for a prime mover, in either case there is motion and perpetual motion is impossible - so a prime mover or start of time is required.
Quoting Gregory
I think it is reasonable to say cause and effect would still apply in any meta-universe / multiverse - they must be able to cause our universe - so Aquinas's arguments still seem to hold.
If you insist.
If, as you began your argument, there is no first cause, that does not imply that there are no other causes - indeed, my argument is that there may, for all we really know, be an infinite regress of causes - so that means that the cause you call the "2nd cause" still exists, it just isn't the 2nd one. This is the same argument as Russel made in the case of the negative integers, the fact that there is no first, simply does not imply that there are no others, it just means that you can't count them - and it really doesn't matter that he was talking about abstract numbers and you are talking about cause-effect 'events' - your argument fails because you are only proving that the causes are uncountable if the there is no first cause, just as the series of negative integers is uncountable because there is there is no first term. From that point of view, the two are exactly analogous.
To illustrate, lets take the Big Bang (as they call it)...
If you are correct and there is an ultimate first cause which was the cause of the Big Bang, then that First Cause is indeed the first cause and the Big Bang is the second cause...
But suppose there was some other sequence of physical causes of the Big Bang that preceded it, then the Big Bang is no longer the second cause, it is the umpteenth (i.e. an undefined number) cause...but it still happened and the universe it (apparently) brought into being with all its subsequent cause-effects still exists - we just can't put a number to it.
And suppose there were an undefined or infinite sequence of cause-effects leading up to the Big Bang. The Big Bang would still be one of them, just not one we could put a number to. And that is all your argument proves - that if there is no first cause, the sequence of causes of the universe as it is now is uncountable. And such it most obviously is. This does not, of course, prove that the there is an infinite regress of cause-effects, but it certainly doesn't prove there can't be.
The whole point of my argument was to show that causes require prior causes, without a first cause there can be nothing and that infinite causal regresses are impossible.
I think we will just have to agree to differ on this one.
Therefore there can be no first cause...because a first cause can have no prior cause and therefore cannot exist.
Its not about agreeing to differ, your argument - and Aquinas' argument - fails for the precise reason that its conclusion is a refutation of its premise.
Of course we can agree to differ on whether we believe there have been a first cause or not, but believing something doesn't make it a logical conclusion.
If the first cause is timeless then it is beyond cause and effect. This seems the only possible explanation for the origin of everything - there must be an uncaused cause somewhere - else the universe would be null and void. Only something timeless can be an uncaused cause - there is nothing sequentially/logically before such an entity - it has permanent existence.
Quoting Siti
You have given no sound reason as to why the argument fails and you continue to believe in the magic of an infinite causal regression without any justification.
Maybe I can turn the question around: Please explain what causes a car to accelerate if the driver does not press the gas pedal?
But then the argument is invalidated because it is based on the premise that everything that exists has a cause.
Your argument is essentially:
There are no uncaused causes
Therefore there must be an uncaused cause
In any case, even if you're right, how do you know that it is not the universe itself that is the uncaused cause?
You have my argument slightly wrong, it is:
- Everything in time has a cause
- Therefore there must be a timeless first cause
Quoting Siti
The universe exists in time and nothing can have permanent existence within past time - the universe in that case would never have started existing so could not even exist now. There must be something permanent external to (space)time to start everything off.
No - time exists within the universe - that's probably where you're going wrong.
Well no again - matter is really just a form of energy (E=mc^2) and the net energy of the universe is exactly the same now as it was "in the beginning" and ever shall be (as far as we know) - probably zero. Matter cannot exist forever (perhaps - but we don't really know that either), but the energy that matter is "made of" (or is a form of) can never be lost (or gained). How then could it have a "beginning"?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_universe
So the energy/matter would be created in the initial BB at the start of time.
Or, the energy/matter pre-existed the start of time (existed timelessly) and entered spacetime when time started.
Totally fascinating! Unfortunately, I am not comprehending what you said. I noticed my brain was trying to find a picture of what you spoke of and could find no picture. It can see a triangle, but not something to the side. This is totally off topic but I think my difficulty relating to what you said, is associated with my lack of a sense of direction. That is my inability to turn in the correct direction or find my way out of a maze. The thought conveyed by your words went into a black hole when you shifted everything to the side.
However, that triangle is thrilling! "The triad is the form of the completion of all things". Nichomachus of Gerasa (c,100, Greek neo-Pythagorean philosopher and mathematician.) The Triad has a special beauty and fairness beyond all numbers, primarily because it is the very first to make actual the potentialities of the Monad." Iamblichus (c. 250-c. 330, Greek Neoplatonic philosopher.) Helium, the second atom to manifest, the first element composed of three different "charges."
"The Mayan Factor" 3. The pulsation-Ray of Rhythm 13. The Pulsation Ray of Universal Movement.
"13 represents the dynamic of movement present in everything and by which everything is ever-changing and at the same time vivified by the universal force of Hunab Ku". "Hunab Ku. The One Giver of Movement and Measure. The principle of intelligent energy that pervades the entire universe, animate or inanimate."
What do you think?
I think I understand a little what you are saying? We say the cause of boil water is the heat, but if there is no oxygen in the water will it boil? I suppose water with no oxygen wouldn't even be water, but I am getting to, things can not happen if the condition for the happening is not right and we do not have grounds for claiming this happened before that happened. Is that anywhere close to right?
(credit: https://steemit.com/physics/@procrastilearner/intuitive-special-relativity-time-dilation)
Obviously the static clock is on the left and the moving clock on the right.
Quoting Athena
Sounds a bit like panpsychism - which maybe a possible explanation for the prime mover. I however don't believe everything can be ever changing - perpetual motion is impossible. But the universe itself may have a timeless element that is in some way intelligent and is responsible for time and the movement we see around us.
I think its more the recognition that "happenings" are the real "stuff" of reality - there are really no "points" in space or "moments" in time - these are purely mental abstractions - there are only smaller or greater intervals between the "events" that reality is composed of. The universe is a continual process of happenings - so is a human being and so is an electron...so the whole is a nested and tangled web of events - not objects jumping from one "state" to another.
All we really know about "the beginning" is that it seems, for some reason entirely unknown to us, that the "region" of the universe we could - in principle - observe, suddenly began to expand from very, very small indeed to incomprehensibly huge. We have absolutely no idea whether or not any "thing" existed "before" that (and some argue that "time" began at this theoretical "singularity" - but bear in mind this impossibly small, impossibly dense "point" need not have been all there was, its just all there was of what we can possibly observe looking back from "now" in our own "space-time" bound bubble of a theoretically observable universe. There are 1001 tales about what might have been before - ekpyrotic universes, 'brane theories, multiverses, rebounding universes, cosmological natural selection...
To leap from "Big Bang" theory to "First Cause" is completely unwarranted and there is no way of knowing whether the real "entire" universe is finite or infinite (in any sense) - space and time themselves may even work very differently "beyond" the theoretically observable universe - we will never know.
For me, its just more satisfying (given all the incomprehensibility I just mentioned) to think of the universe as an enormous happening that is continually unfolding - no need to have an ultimate cause or beginning because what we see every day is always a "beginning" and an "end" and "beginnings" and "ends" will probably continue to emerge from the process of reality ad infinitum.
I'm pretty sure that hasn't made it any clearer - but I know what I mean (I think) even if nobody else does! :grin:
— Albert Einstein