The First Cause? Prime Mover Argument

[Alex K]

I was asked to set up thread on this topic, so I'm happy to oblige

Very good!

I was an Atheist for many years until I began my Philosophy degree. In the course of that degree my views on almost everything have changed and one of the most notable changes is the move to belief in a prime mover.

The argument that swayed me is very simple:
Premise 1) Everything in the Universe is either impermanent, or depends upon something else for its existence.

I do not agree. Explain why that is.

Premise 2) An infinite regress of finite, impermanent causes seems logically impossible.

You do not know that causation as you employ it here is valid in the early universe/ at microscopic scales. Causation seems to be a largely statistical phenomenon, and it is undermined by the apparent randomness of quantum physics.

Conclusion 1)Therefore there must a permanent, infinite first cause of everything in the Universe. (or the Universe is itself permanent/infinite but BBT suggests it had a beginning and is expanding so this seems implausible)

What do you mean by infinite here? Also, the BBT does not reliably reach back to a beginning, it can only describe physics once the universe has a nonzero extent and finite temperature.

Premise 3) This first cause is empistemically hidden from us (we have no direct experience or knowledge of it)
Conclusion 2) Therefore we know nothing about it other than what is necessary for a first cause of the Universe.
Conclusion 3) Therefore there is a, largely mysterious, infinite, permanent, first cause of the Universe that I will call a Prime mover.

This belief does not entail Theism and I see many strong arguments against personal or interventionist Gods hence why I don't consider myself a Theist. It may be considered a form of Deism, or possibly a weak Atheism (or indeed a weak Theism although I would struggle to accept that label) but I'm unsure where to categorize it in those terms. Any questions?

- Individual events at the quantum level don't seem to have a cause. What we know about fundamental physics would suggest that universes like ours can simply occur in the same random fashion in which nuclear decays occur. Your notion of a mover seems to hinge on a classical concept of causality which is not valid any more.

- If I grant you that there is such a prime mover according to your argument, is there any reason why it would not simply be another aspect of the universe? Why would you even stop calling yourself atheist because of that. From these arguments you don't know anything about it that would justify that.

- Your introduction of a prime mover only helps you solve the problem because you allow yourself not to ask about the mechanics of this prime mover. You allow yourself to make exceptions for it which you don't allow for the universe. In this sense I don't see how its introduction solves anything.