RE: Non-religious Theism
April 21, 2014 at 10:33 am
(This post was last modified: April 21, 2014 at 10:36 am by Metalogos.)
Cato- "My philosophical disagreements with the prime mover argument is that it doesn't explain anything, adds an entity that isn't necessarily needed, and raises more questions. Even if I assume a prime mover there is no way of knowing that the prime mover was directly responsible for the Big Bang; perhaps the prime mover is further back in the causal chain. How did the prime mover cause the Big Bang? Does the prime mover create other universes? Does the prime mover do anything else?"
Thank you, Cato, for addressing me and not rejecting me outright because we may have differing views. Your actions are worthy of your esteemed name.
You say that positing a Prime Mover doesn't explain anything but I don't understand why you say that. Positing a unmoved mover does indeed explain exactly how the universe could have come into existence. Conversely, not having recourse to such a self-contained agent leaves one asking the obvious question, "What caused the singularity to explode at the moment of the Big Bang?" or "Why did the singularity not simply remain a singularity?"
As for the proximity of the Prime Mover to the event we all now calling the Big Bang, I don't see a problem as long as whatever chain of events or causes one may observe or posit have their eventual origin at the first movement of the Prime Mover. As for answering the question whether the Prime Mover caused the Big Bang, I would have to say yes if one assumes that the explosion of the singularity is the initial origin of the universe. If one posits that the Big Bang is just one in a myriad of such cosmic events, it still is logical to assume that there was an initial, prime event and that the Prime Mover would have been responsible for that event.
As for the possibilities of multiple parallel universes, I certainly don't know if such places exist, but if they do, they too will have had an origin and thus a need for the Prime Mover argument.
Dear Cato, what argument do you offer in place of a Prime Mover scenario? And again, why do you say that it is not necessary to have such an agent for the origin of the universe?
Thank you, Cato, for addressing me and not rejecting me outright because we may have differing views. Your actions are worthy of your esteemed name.
You say that positing a Prime Mover doesn't explain anything but I don't understand why you say that. Positing a unmoved mover does indeed explain exactly how the universe could have come into existence. Conversely, not having recourse to such a self-contained agent leaves one asking the obvious question, "What caused the singularity to explode at the moment of the Big Bang?" or "Why did the singularity not simply remain a singularity?"
As for the proximity of the Prime Mover to the event we all now calling the Big Bang, I don't see a problem as long as whatever chain of events or causes one may observe or posit have their eventual origin at the first movement of the Prime Mover. As for answering the question whether the Prime Mover caused the Big Bang, I would have to say yes if one assumes that the explosion of the singularity is the initial origin of the universe. If one posits that the Big Bang is just one in a myriad of such cosmic events, it still is logical to assume that there was an initial, prime event and that the Prime Mover would have been responsible for that event.
As for the possibilities of multiple parallel universes, I certainly don't know if such places exist, but if they do, they too will have had an origin and thus a need for the Prime Mover argument.
Dear Cato, what argument do you offer in place of a Prime Mover scenario? And again, why do you say that it is not necessary to have such an agent for the origin of the universe?
