(May 28, 2016 at 10:53 am)IATIA Wrote:(May 28, 2016 at 10:35 am)ChadWooters Wrote: The validity of that step comes from Way 1.
"Way 1" does not validate anything either. There is no reason to assume that space-time, dark energy, etc. are not eternally in motion. Any attempt to apply the infinite regression rule would apply to god also. Because god had to have a 'first' thought, a desire to create, then the 'action' of creation, we have a causality scenario that needs a "first mover" for god. The argument that god is "outside" time can just as well be applied to space-time, etc.. As time is a function of the causality of matter, there would be no time until space-time erupted and matter was created.
Which is more logical? eternal energy or eternal intelligent energy?
So sorry. I will try to be more clear. So you can avoid all those straw men.
Your second sentence is based on a misreading of the text.Your examples, space-time, dark energy, etc. are the types of things mentioned in 1W as being in motion, which means that they change. Space-time warps and expands, etc. That means in goes from once state of existence to another. It goes from a potential state (potency) to actuality (in act). As logic shows,the First Mover is that which is fully in act and in which there is no potential. Your third sentence builds on that misreading. Because the First Mover is fully in actualized it doesn't change. To have a "first thought" leading to a subsequent action, as you suggest, would imply an initial state of potential. Having potential to change is contrary to the nature of the First Mover because it is fully actualized across time and space and not within it. Your further objections merely build on these earlier misunderstandings of the demonstrations.
As it relates to the Necessary Being, you need to understand that the logical conclusion of your stance, which you seem to be expressly proposing is tas follows. The physical universe is the necessary being. If you pay attention to what the 3W actual says, and not rely on a faulty summary, you will notice that the demonstration is based on the difference between what is possible to be or not be and what must be out of necessity. You stance is essentially that the universe is exactly as it is out of necessity and could not possibly be different from the way it is. For example the physical constants, like the speed of light, had to be what they are and that it would be impossible for them to be otherwise. They must be brute facts for which no explaination is required. Your position is that it is not reasonable for anyone to ask, "Why is the speed of light c and not c +/- x?" Now my position is that those types of questions are perfectly reasonalbe when talking about things that seem like they could have been otherwise.
My suggestion to you is that you take a bit more time to make sure you fully understand the terms of the demonstrations before raising objections that have nothing at all to do with them.
