Why the "unmovable mover" and first cause are impossible.

[All Else Failed]

A common Christian belief and or argument is that "well something had to be there to start it all, something that was the first cause that made things happen." I will show how this is impossible and why I think this is evidence against the common mistake of thinking that "something had to come first".

Now to the question of "why is the unmoved mover impossible?"

Answer:

First, there could not have been a beginning at all, there has always been things. Everything has always existed and has been moving based on the idea that nothing could have possibly started it because if someone (lets say god) was always there to start it, who put him there? A different unmoved mover? Then what of the one who put HIM there? Yet another unmoved mover? This ladies and gentlemen, is called an infinite regress, where if you bring into the picture a first cause triggered by a being and hold the position that "things could not have come from nothing", the unmoved mover IS subject to this as well! Meaning believers have to play by their own logic and apply god to their own reasoning that things could not have just came out of "nowhere" because this would mean god came out of nowhere.


Some will say "oh, but god has always existed, it could have all been there we needed a first cause" well again, who put god there? If things cannot come from nothing, then did god defy this and come from nothing?

 

[Ryder]

No offense I hate discussions about faith. I will contribute to them it's just I don't like em

 

[Minor Axis]

AEF, just admit you don't (along with the rest of us) have a clue! You sound just like a religious zealot, except your religion is not to believe.

 

[Accountable]

A common Christian belief and or argument is that "well something had to be there to start it all, something that was the first cause that made things happen." I will show how this is impossible and why I think this is evidence against the common mistake of thinking that "something had to come first".

Now to the question of "why is the unmoved mover impossible?"

Answer:

First, there could not have been a beginning at all, there has always been things. Everything has always existed and has been moving based on the idea that nothing could have possibly started it because if someone (lets say god) was always there to start it, who put him there? A different unmoved mover? Then what of the one who put HIM there? Yet another unmoved mover? This ladies and gentlemen, is called an infinite regress, where if you bring into the picture a first cause triggered by a being and hold the position that "things could not have come from nothing", the unmoved mover IS subject to this as well! Meaning believers have to play by their own logic and apply god to their own reasoning that things could not have just came out of "nowhere" because this would mean god came out of nowhere.


Some will say "oh, but god has always existed, it could have all been there we needed a first cause" well again, who put god there? If things cannot come from nothing, then did god defy this and come from nothing?

Yeh, common sense and logic always fall apart when we try to dig back to the beginning of the beginning, no matter which side you try to take. If God made everything, who made God? If we started from a random collision of atoms, what did the atoms start from?

No matter which tack you take, the decision has to have a healthy dose of faith.

 

[icecuban]

A common Christian belief and or argument is that "well something had to be there to start it all, something that was the first cause that made things happen." I will show how this is impossible and why I think this is evidence against the common mistake of thinking that "something had to come first".

Now to the question of "why is the unmoved mover impossible?"

Answer:

First, there could not have been a beginning at all, there has always been things. Everything has always existed and has been moving based on the idea that nothing could have possibly started it because if someone (lets say god) was always there to start it, who put him there? A different unmoved mover? Then what of the one who put HIM there? Yet another unmoved mover? This ladies and gentlemen, is called an infinite regress, where if you bring into the picture a first cause triggered by a being and hold the position that "things could not have come from nothing", the unmoved mover IS subject to this as well! Meaning believers have to play by their own logic and apply god to their own reasoning that things could not have just came out of "nowhere" because this would mean god came out of nowhere.


Some will say "oh, but god has always existed, it could have all been there we needed a first cause" well again, who put god there? If things cannot come from nothing, then did god defy this and come from nothing?

Its the crazy paradox's that always give me the good feeling. its like saying, "everything has always been here", its just as crazy sounding as "god has always been", or "this stuff has always been here". remember, even the laws of physics are flawed, when it comes to things like, not being able to create or destroy energy, is apparent in a lot of places, but are we able to say in all places? you could, but you probably would never know, and quantum physics shows us, things happen for "no reason", though we dont even know if there isnt a reason, or if its our bodies or minds that restrict us (currently), from seeing others things at work.

to say anything theory is solid through and through is probably impossible, because i believe, that in this existance, there can be things that are BOTH "yes", and "no", to the same question, and be as true as its opposite.

Again, to state anything like "things have always been", is as big and bold (and without any chance of debate) as saying, "there is a god". you can say the proof is in science, but like the night sky, i dont think we've found out 1 millionth of what kind of interactions really go on "within" and "around" us, even though we already "know" a whole lot.

 

[PinkZebra]

Since God, by definition, is the creator of the whole universe, he is the creator of time. Therefore He is not limited by the time dimension He created, so has no beginning in time. God is the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity. (Isaiah 57:15)

 

[Dana]

I don't think this will ever have an answer.

 

[All Else Failed]

Since God, by definition, is the creator of the whole universe, he is the creator of time. Therefore He is not limited by the time dimension He created, so has no beginning in time. God is the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity. (Isaiah 57:15)

You're missing my point. If something cannot come out of nothing, like religious people claim, then god himself is subject to this.

 

[PinkZebra]

You're missing my point. If something cannot come out of nothing, like religious people claim, then god himself is subject to this.

I don't think "religious people" claim that something cannot come from "nothing". They don't know if/what was there "before".

 

[PinkZebra]

First, there could not have been a beginning at all, there has always been things

How do you know this is true?

 

[lonemeditater]

AEF, just admit you don't (along with the rest of us) have a clue! You sound just like a religious zealot, except your religion is not to believe.

No offense I hate discussions about faith. I will contribute to them it's just I don't like em

seconded

 

[All Else Failed]

AEF, just admit you don't (along with the rest of us) have a clue! You sound just like a religious zealot, except your religion is not to believe.

thats not how this game works

 

[groundpounder]

Exactly. Stuff like this is calisthenics for your brain. You may actually learn something.


For instance, AEF is yearning for someone to save him. Why else would he be so mezmerized by the idea of God that he can't stop talking about it?

 

[All Else Failed]

Lulz.