极速赛车168官网 Comments on: Unmoved Mover for Unmoved Doubters

极速赛车168官网 By: Mike La

Mike La — Mon, 26 Oct 2020 21:57:00 +0000

Sorry, Dr. T. You gave the aporiai ("dilemmas") that Ar is puzzling about but he then gives an example to wash your arguments away: The unmoved mover of the man holding a stick to hit a stone. The man is the first and unmoved mover (so the "unmoved" must be in terms "of comprehension"). Without doubt, the past and motion to the past is infinite for Ar, so kinetically there need not be, and was never, a "first." The allegedly better argument is in Metaphysics Lambda, the analogy of love of the outer spheres for the Unmoved Mover, which has no matter or potential of any sort. This love (of the beloved but unmoving mover), like the love of a man for a woman who is at rest, sleeping, causes for some bizarre reason that no one has ever explained, the eternal circling of the outer spheres, which cause motion in the lower cosmos and earth. What man in love with a woman sees her and then starts moving in a circle??? Second problem: Ar then calls this UM a God with blissful life, which only thinks of itself thinking for eternity. So it does not even know that the universe and humans exist, a doctrine which really upset Cicero. Moreover, life requires matter, which contradicts the doctrine that the UM has no matter at all. Not even Theophrastus, Ar's successor, accepted the UM, nor did anyone else for 500 years until Alexander of Aphrodisias mistakenly assumed that Ar's youthful doctrine (merely a first attempt to supplant Plato's TIMAEUS) was his mature doctrine, putting centuries of later scholars like yourself on a wild goose chase. Not clear? Then I follow your example and point you to other reading: G Scott, Aristotle's "Not to Fear" Proof for the Necessary Eternality of the Universe

极速赛车168官网 By: monktoken

monktoken — Thu, 05 Sep 2019 15:53:00 +0000

In reply to Mark Hunter.

Aristotle and Aquinas both assumed the universe was infinite, the
concept of Big Bang, origin of our world, etc. don't actually affect
this proof because that isn't what this proof is about and even if a full cycle of other aliens existed, were crumpled up in a Big Crunch, and "our" Big Bang happened doesn't affect anything.

This
proof is about the here and now. Right now a cup of coffee cannot become
cold unless cooler air passes over it which cannot happen unless heat
energy is unequally distributed by the molecules that compose the air,
which cannot happen without atomic reactions, which cannot happen
unless, etc. At some point this chain has to be finite for the reasons
stated above.

We can go many layers deep with science (and the more the better!), but it
still doesn't explain the underlying cause of what is causing the
initial reaction. There also has to be a first actor for the reasons stated above about infinite regression.

极速赛车168官网 By: John Smith

John Smith — Sat, 31 Aug 2019 22:09:00 +0000

In reply to QuanKong. mover by Aristotle means actualization of a potential. You are misunderstanding.

极速赛车168官网 By: Lard_Bick

Lard_Bick — Thu, 09 May 2019 21:13:00 +0000

I'm late to the party, but here to provide a counter. The problem I see here is two fold. It seems the author here, as well as Aristotle and Aquinas, both equate being unable to conceive of infinities is the equivalent of them not existing. No such evidence is provided that demonstrates an infinite regress is impossible. Lastly, I see a fallacy of composition. Assuming what may be truth on Earth, this Galaxy, must also be true for Universe as a whole. No evidence is provided for this.

极速赛车168官网 By: Luke Milbury

Luke Milbury — Tue, 02 Aug 2016 21:15:00 +0000

In reply to Mark Hunter. Virtual particles are not really particles either so much as waves of possibility. That's why they are called virtual. It would be misleading to even call them events.

极速赛车168官网 By: Luke Milbury

Luke Milbury — Tue, 02 Aug 2016 20:44:00 +0000

In reply to Mark Hunter. Electrons and photons may be indivisible as a particle but they are divisible as a wave. I don't think the question is whether indivisible things can move but whether they can do so without being acted upon by outside energy or forces.

极速赛车168官网 By: Yeh Man

Yeh Man — Wed, 26 Aug 2015 00:42:00 +0000

I was mainly trying find the origins of the idea of monotheism. It seems unlikely to me that Judaism or Zoraostrianism or any other religion inspired Aristotle but rather he thought of these himself on from reference from some other tradition, not necessarily religious. Maybe someone else has wondered them same thing and found an answer?

极速赛车168官网 By: Brian Bleakley

Brian Bleakley — Tue, 02 Jun 2015 03:22:00 +0000

Why can nothing be both a mover and moved? If we take a simple system of gravitation with three point masses, each particle is both a mover to the other two and moved by the other two. Is that considered proceeding to infinity?

极速赛车168官网 By: Boris

Boris — Sun, 03 May 2015 16:03:00 +0000

A perfect example of the logical fallacy known as Special Pleading.

极速赛车168官网 By: Michael J Felock

Michael J Felock — Fri, 12 Sep 2014 10:12:00 +0000

In 1990 I wrote a book that was inspired by a factual account of a supernatural experience of mine. I wrote the book based on faith that the information I received as a result of this one experience was true and accurate. There was, however, one paragraph that always caused me consternation. I wondered why I wrote it and what was it applicability. Just recently I discovered it is a near word for word explanation of Aristotle's explanation of the idea of substance and that of motion