(March 4, 2014 at 9:36 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:(March 4, 2014 at 4:56 pm)Rampant.A.I. Wrote: The unmoved mover is an historically flawed argument, with a presupposed conclusion in the premise.Please expand on your understanding of the objection. I believe the unmoved mover argument remains sound. I don’t know the specifics of the objection to which you are refer, but I do know that the objections of which I am aware are themselves flawed.
Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
Unsupported assertion. No one has witnessed something completely new "beginning to exist" in our universe, such as the beginning of matter. All things are combinations of existing matter.
The Universe began to exist.
Unsupported, it is not known whether the universe began to exist, or how.
Therefore, the Universe had a cause.
Even if a supported conclusion by the two premises, this shows precisely nothing. Ontological arguments are notorious for ramming in a "God is the only possible cause, therefore GodDidIt, TA-DAH!" At the conclusion. For this to be a valid conclusion, it's necessary <resuppose <God exists>, effectively placing the conclusion in the premises. It is essentially a circular argument with flawed premises.
