Unmoved Mover for Unmoved Doubters
On this blog there have been long and intense discussions among Catholics, agnostics, and atheists that either point to, or directly involve, the logical proofs of God’s existence. Here is a scaled-down version of the Unmoved Mover proof that St. Thomas Aquinas wrote in the Summa Contra Gentiles. I am not suggesting that any words should be altered, but rather attempting to pull out the key points so someone new to reading his writing has a map through the argument.
The argument is in Book One, Chapter 13, Sections 1-19 (massive volumes of writing come before and after it). Whether you are a believer or non-believer, try to look on these proofs objectively. Do you remember marveling at shapes as a child, noticing the symmetry and connection between circles, triangles, and squares? Do you remember learning about the principles of geometry, or especially trigonometry, as a student? You sensed something could be put into words, and although the proofs were rigorous, when you realized how the relationships fit together, it was exciting (if not daunting). Approach these proofs that way. St. Thomas references them all to Aristotle’s Physics, and before you think you’ve found the “Gotcha!” error in either scholar’s reasoning, please consider that these folks were also believers. Click the link? Good. Now without further adieu…the argument.
Everything that is moved is moved by another, in movers and things moved one cannot proceed to infinity.
“Everything that is moved is moved by another. That some things are in motion—for example, the sun—is evident from sense. Therefore, it is moved by something else that moves it. This mover is itself either moved or not moved. If it is not, we have reached our conclusion—namely, that we must posit some unmoved mover. This we call God. If it is moved, it is moved by another mover. We must, consequently, either proceed to infinity, or we must arrive at some unmoved mover. Now, it is not possible to proceed to infinity. Hence, we must posit some prime unmoved mover. Both statements can be proved.” (Section 3)
The Proofs
Everything that is moved is moved by another. Proved in three ways:
1) Whatever is moved is divisible (Aristotle Physics VI, 4). Moving things must be divisible, must have parts. Why? Because to be moving or changing, the same thing cannot be both unchanged and changed all at once. Aristotle wrote this before we knew of atomic structure, but consider what we’ve learned since. Everything that has been discovered is further broken into parts, and is constantly changing. If you move your arm, it is moved by both arm muscles and other muscles, which are moved by muscle cells and other cells, which are moved by molecules, which are moved by atoms, which are moved by atomic particles, et cetera.
So, for something not to be moved by another thing, the moving thing would have to primarily move itself, be moved by reason of itself, not by reason of a part of itself. It would have to be, as a whole, at rest, and then, as a whole, move. If a part were at rest the whole would be at rest, because there would be no parts. Since moving things must logically have parts, this is a logical impossibility.
This is called a conditional proposition. St. Thomas gave the example, “If man is an ass, he is irrational.” Man cannot be an ass (stop snickering, he means the animal), nor can he be irrational (possessing an irrational soul), but if he were an ass he would necessarily also be irrational.
2) Whatever is moved by accident is not moved by itself (Aristotle Physics VIII, 4). “Accident” means a property or quality not essential to a thing. To be moved by violence, means to be moved unnaturally by another. So things that are not animals that move (rocks) must be moved by another, since the movement is by accident. This is a proof by induction.
3) And to return to divisibility, since things that move are divisible, the same thing cannot be both action and potential (Aristotle Physics VIII, 5). Thus nothing can be both mover and moved, and therefore, nothing moves itself. Logically impossible.
In movers and things moved one cannot proceed to infinity. Proved in three ways:
1) If all movers and things moved proceed to infinity, then there is no succession. All infinities move together. If one of them is finite, i.e. moved in a finite time, then all the infinites are moved in finite time. This is impossible. The mover and the thing moved must exist simultaneously, which would mean all things move as one single mobile, and one infinite is moved in finite time, which is, again, logically impossible (Aristotle Physics VII, 1).
2) Or, in an ordered series of movers and things moved in succession (a series where one thing is moved by another), but a succession that proceeds to infinity, there still must be identified a first mover. Why? Because if there is no first mover, there is no thing moved. If the first mover is removed, or ceases to move, no other mover will move or be moved. The first mover is the cause of motion for all the others. There can be no infinite series of intermediate movers, it is a logical impossibility.
3) Or, reverse the order. That which is moved cannot move unless there is a principal moving cause. Nothing will be moved.
Still Not Clear?
If this is not clear, study (as opposed to skim) St. Aquinas’ or Aristotle’s writing. In this chapter Aquinas goes on to address the next question, “Can the Unmoved Mover move?” He answers no, referencing back to the logical problems above, and including the arguments against it from others. In the diagram, the reason the second “No” points to God is because the thing is also not moving (it wasn’t moved), and the third “No” infers that there must be a First Unmoved Mover.
This is enough for now, so let the discussion begin. Conversion of heart is a matter of will, and while we pray for that continual conversion for ourselves and for others, this logical exercise is about knowledge. Not every trigonometry student loved mathematics when he began to study the discipline either.
Category: Doctrine, Norms, Physics, Random, Science, Theology
Subscribe
If you enjoyed this article, subscribe to receive more just like it.
Comments (286)
Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed
Sites That Link to this Post
- Unmoved Mover for Unmoved Doubters | cathlick.com | January 10, 2013
- A few good links | eChurch Blog | January 14, 2013
- A few good links | Unsettled Christianity | January 14, 2013
- Would There Be Science Without Christianity? : Stacy Trasancos | April 2, 2013
So, let me ask this (I know it’s a basic question, but I don’t mean it as a gotcha): whence came the unmoved mover?
I know rt, I appreciate that that people here are sincere. Trust me, it’s not lost on me at all.
By logical compulsion, the UM can not “come” from anywhere. That would be motion. That’s why when the Church Fathers had to articulate “God” as best as possible, uniting the God that ancient Greeks found with the revelation of Christ, they had to use language like this:
“We firmly believe and simply confess that there is only one true God, eternal and immeasurable, almighty, unchangeable, incomprehensible and ineffable, Father, Son and holy Spirit, three persons but one absolutely simple essence, substance or nature. The Father is from none, the Son from the Father alone, and the holy Spirit from both equally, eternally without beginning or end; the Father generating, the Son being born, and the holy Spirit proceeding; consubstantial and coequal, co-omnipotent and coeternal; one principle of all things, creator of all things invisible and visible…” (Fourth Lateran Council, 1215)
So here’s the problem I have: you must posit the existence of an unmoved mover in order to avoid infinite regress, but why is the existence of an unmoved mover any less of a conundrum?
No, it’s the other way around. Aristotle started with observation of the natural world. He noticed that everything that moves, is moved, so he asked whether that could proceed infinitely.
The ancient Greeks believed in many gods, Aristotle had no preconceived reason (nor did Plato) to posit an UM.
Let me rephrase: The argument states that infinite regress is logically impossible, therefore an unmoved mover is necessary. But, again, why is the existence of an unmoved mover any less of a conundrum? Bothe seem equally mind-boggling to me.
(I know that eventually we want to get to the properties of the unmoved mover — perfection, providence, goodness, awareness, and so on — but I can’t unless I see how an unmoved mover is an improvement on infinite regress.)
Or, let me try again.
It’s not a matter of avoiding infinite regress, but of it being inconceivable, i.e. logically impossible, a contradiction of terms.
There is no logical contradiction in positing that an UM exists, it necessarily must exist given the nature of motion.
I’m not seeing the logical contradiction. The argument seems like this to me:
1. Infinite regress is impossible because rules out a first motion that make all other motions possible.
2. A first motion that makes all other motions possible is necessary because otherwise we would be faced with infinite regress.
3. And infinite regress is impossible because rules out a first motion that make all other motions possible.
And so on, in continual circular reasoning, always assuming the thing you’re trying to prove. So what am I missing here?
More like:
1. Infinite regress is impossible because
rules out a first motion that make all other motions possiblesomething has to move the first thing.2. A first motion that makes all other motions possible is necessary because otherwise
we would be faced with infinite regressnothing would move.It’s not circular reasoning since the question is “Can there be infinite regress?” It is questioned, not assumed.
Let me try to think of an analogy…out of time for now. In the SCG link there is an explanation about infinite regress, in the meantime.
No, still circular.
1. “Infinite regress is impossible because something has to move the first thing.” No, something has to move the “first thing” only if you assume infinite regress is impossible.
2. “A first motion that makes all other motions possible is necessary because otherwise nothing would move.” Again, only if you assume infinite regress is impossible.
Both of your statements rest on the assumption that infinite regress is impossible and therefore cannot be used to prove infinite regress is impossible without falling into circular reasoning.
Aristotle did not start with the assumption that infinite regress was impossible. He asked whether it was or not, and demonstrated the logical pathway that shows it to be impossible. He is credited with practically coining the phrase for such a fallacy, he knew better, and so did all the scholars who followed him.
Circular reasoning is when you assume a premise, make it part of the original claim, without showing how it was derived.
“Circular reasoning is when you assume a premise, make it part of the original claim, without showing how it was derived.”
That seems to be exactly what you’re doing, as I tried to show in my last post. I read your January 10, 2013 at 5:13 pm post as an explanation of why infinite regress is impossible, and showed that each of your two statements rely on assuming your conclusion.
If that post was not intended to show that infinite regression is logically impossible, then let me ask: why is infinite regression logically impossible?
rt,
Would not this situation be exactly the the problem? Instead of many objects we see that are moved, we pick one and setup a physical experiment using all the objects that are in that one chain of causality.
An object cannot move until it exists and the previous object that moves it also exists.
Line up a row of dominoes that starts with infinity. What do you see?
Howard, I’m afraid I don’t know what you’re getting at. Specifically I do not understand the sentence “Line up a row of dominoes that starts with infinity.”
Dominos are not capable of lining themselves up.
That did not assist me.
So this is an impossibility?
I do not know what “this” refers to.
At this point I might suspect you’re being deliberately cryptic while you might think I’m being deliberately obtuse. Let’s assume neither of those is the case. I’ll step back a bit and say I don’t know what you mean by “starts with infinity.”
Since the movement of the dominoes is towards the last one and is sequential in time, and we need a line to have the movement continuous. How can that be accomplished if there is no beginning?
But in an infinite line of dominoes, there is no “last one.”
He means, if you lined up an infinite row of dominoes, and none of them ever moved, would any of rest move?
Thanks for an analogy, Howard.
Aquinas says it better.
Good point!
rt,
“If that post was not intended to show that infinite regression is logically impossible, then let me ask: why is infinite regression logically impossible?”
In an ordered series of movers and things moved in succession (a series where one thing is moved by another), but a succession that proceeds to infinity, there still must be identified a first mover. Why? Because if there is no first mover, there is no thing moved. If the first mover is removed, or ceases to move, no other mover will move or be moved. The first mover is the cause of motion for all the others. There can be no infinite series of intermediate movers, it is a logical impossibility.
But if “none of them ever move,” then what is this “any of the rest” that you refer to? By saying “none of them” there’s no other group of the that constitute “the rest.”
I’M NOT TRYING TO BE ANNOYING!
Really.
But we’re dealing with arguments of pure logic here, so the terms need to be clear to me.
rt,
You may not want to accept the conclusion or find it compelling, but you cannot say that Aristotle and St. Aquinas just used circular reasoning and made an unproven assumption about motion.
First off, why not?
Second, my statements about circular reasoning are about what’s been said on this page thus far, and thus far it looks circular to me.
Why not? Because no assumption is made, the proofs are given. An assumption is something that is assumed to be true without any proof showing that it is. The proofs are in the article above, with links to the original (translated) texts.
You can call it circular reasoning if you want, but that fallacy is clearly defined, it was even defined by Aristotle, and no such fallacy exists here…since the proofs are given.
When any two do not do their thing, the rest is the ones left that also do not do their thing.
The dominoes make it more real. If infinity is the problem, just take a set of 10. Will the other nine fall if the first one is not pushed?
Yes or no?
Now keep extending it. Is the same true?
A million?
A million million?
A million million million?
You get the picture. If no first one exists (as in infinity), then no first one can be pushed, and if no first one is pushed, no others fall.
I said “start” with infinity. The illustration has to end with the one that recieved the movement last because we are recreating the universe as I see it now.
Howard, I don’t know what it means to “start with infinity.” An infinite line of dominoes has no start.
Then ignore start at the beginning and start at the end.
It is imaginary anyway.
But Stacy, in saying “just take a set of 10″ you’ve asked me to assume there is no infinite regression, so your argument is going to make me assume the thing your argument is trying to prove.
I suspect we’re at an impasse here. Every argument trying to prove “infinite regression is impossible” seems to contain a premise that assumes “infinite regression is impossible.”
If you like, though, we can bracket this issue and move forward by saying “Suppose infinite regression is impossible.” I’m okay with positing the existence of a first movement and seeing where that takes us.
I just made a bowel of jello. I think I will have some.
But what if you never made jello, then could you have some?
Only if I made an infinite amount. Then it would not wiggle.
Of course it would! An infinite amount of jello would require an infinite amount of space for it to exist in, and an infinite amount of space would leave room enough for any amount of jello to jiggle, except that an infinite amount of jello would fill up any amount of space, except that an infinite amount of space…
Oh confound it! No do you see why I say intuitive thought breaks down when confronted with questions of infinity?
I said “wiggle” you said “jiggle”. Prove your terms.
“Only if I made an infinite amount. Then it would not wiggle.”
FTW!
rt,
Why don’t you show the proof that says infinite regression is possible?
How do you move another domino if there is no first one that moves?
Please show the argument.
You’re both right, it’s a paradox.
Georg Cantor spent his life answering this question on Infinity.
He also went insane.
This is not a question on infinity. Infinity is just a casualty.
Because I don’t know that infinite regression IS possible. I simply haven’t seen a proof here against it that doesn’t assume what it’s trying to prove.
As I said, though, I’m willing to accept it for the sake of argument and see where it leads. I’m finding this fascinating. And I’m marveling at the lovely tone we’re taking with each other.
Something I’ve wondering about that neither Aquinas nor Aristotle knew about: Two bodies at rest will move toward one another due to gravity. What implication does this have for the motion argument?
I’ve been reading this and it reminds me of a ‘why-because’ discussion.
rt – two bodies at rest will move toward one another due to gravity – is untrue as one of them would have to be made to move toward the other because they are being held in place by gravity – place two same size marbles on a flat surface and they will not move unless one is first moved, but if the surface is tilted even by ‘the width of a hair’ than gravity will force the object at the now higher end to move toward the one on the lower end.
look forward to see where this whole discussion goes.
No, Richard, as a pure logic experiment, two bodies at rest floating in space will in fact move toward one another due to gravity.
Stacy,
Just wondering.
Sorry everyone, can’t ask without asking.
Is your 9 year old able to understand this concept?
Howard, why do ask?
Consider it an exploration of generational differences.
I’d rather not at this point.
Yes, my 9 yo gets it. And as a friend just pointed out to me, I should have kept it simpler too. With infinite regress, we never get here.
No jello, no nothing.
Perhaps a 9-year-old’s understanding of infinity is not complete. I certainly wouldn’t stake my beliefs on it.
Was that her first comment (we never get there) as to why a first mover is needed?
rt – guess I should of said ‘on earth’ as everything else, the dominoes, have a eartly setting but you’ve moved it to outer space. two objects in space will move toward one another only if one has a greater gravitational pull than the other. A meteor will fly past the earth unless it gets caught in the gratitional pull of the earth. If what you say is correct, why haven’t the moon and earth collided since you say they will move toward each other. but since you said ‘two bodies floating’ (I assume floating as not moving) would one not have to have a greater gravitional pull than the other to make it move – back to the earth and moon – are they floating in space or moving?
Richard, that’s simply not correct.
And you’ll find the answer to question by googling this phrase (without quote marks):
why don’t the earth and moon collide
Richard, here’s a good link on why the moon doesn’t crash to the earth:
http://www.english-online.at/science/gravity/gravity-mass-weight.htm
“Perhaps a 9-year-old’s understanding of infinity is not complete. I certainly wouldn’t stake my beliefs on it.”
Some truths are simple, yet profound. She understands that the picture of the syrup bottle on the syrup bottle represents something without an end. I remember being very young and standing between two almost parallel mirrors and understanding that the reflection, if they were perfectly parallel, would go on forever.
It’s not difficult to understand the domino analogy. A first one is needed.
Infinity has many concepts that are very difficult to understand;
i.e.
A 7inch ruler can be infinite; there are different sizes of infinity.
I see nothing simple about infinity and eternity. Nor have the philosophers who have debated it for centuries. But, as I said, Stacy, I’m happy to accept the idea of a first motion and see where that takes us.
I love being around younger people. They give you a view of life that is often unique. They remind me of experiences, feelings and attitudes I had when I was younger.
The entertainer Art Linklatter from long ago had a segment on his T.V. show called “Kids Say The Darndest Things”.
One that stuck in my mind went like this.
A small boy’s (probably 6 or 7) parents gave him a puppy that unfortunately died.
He was asked if he was sad about that. He said yes.
He was asked if he thought the puppy was in heaven with God.
His answer was, “Why would God want a dead puppy?”
If you tell a child that the distance from one end of the room to the other can be halved infinitely, she’ll still walk across the room.
And yet this paradox of Zeno’s is still debated by philosophers and mathematicians.
Perhaps it is time to notice the obvious. There is at least one among us who is unmoved.
Whether we are meeting the unmoved mover in the process may be an issue for some, but I doubt it.
The center of a theoretical circle that moves does not itself move, in theory. Perhaps we are encountering the center of a circle.
On the other hand, perhaps we are encountering the limits of free will. No amount of arguing can compel someone who is stuck in their own center.
Perhaps it is best to move on and let the self-centered person figure out what makes him or her move.
My sense is that there is, rather than a great insight, there is a great oversight involved, not just involving the unmoved mover but all of us.
It is a blind spot, if you will.
Instead of continuing philosophical arguments, may I suggest a series of brief question:
Why are we always surprised by the beautiful?
What is it about beauty that surprises?
While some may want to say beauty is in the eye of the beholder, before it got there, there was the beauty that was suddenly encountered.
Perhaps beauty is like a magnet, with two poles. When we least expect it, we are unexpectedly bonded to it.
Consider a look at this video and what it tells us about the potential of a first mover of beauty: [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=mL8puJMUDpk ]
Aquinas calls such an encounter the Beatific Vision [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beatific_vision ]. It would be most compelling.
No one is wrong. Everyone is right.
If we were given the chance to look outside the Universe, it would be indescribable, astonishing and beyond our understanding.
What I’m confused by is everyone’s lack of interest in learning more about infinity and the work done on the field.
Absolutely fascinating to me.
Mjeck, do have any suggestions? The fact that it’s so baffling is what makes it so fascinating.
Georg Cantor’s life work was Infinity. BBC had a show called, Dangerous Knowledge; on the pursuit of Infinity. It’s a good place to start.
thanks!
Mjeck writes: “No one is wrong. Everyone is right.”
Not if one contradicts another. Both may be wrong, but only one may be right. Do you agree?
It’s a paradox; paradoxes exist, and there is nothing wrong with that.
Mjeck writes: “If we were given the chance to look outside the Universe, it would be indescribable, astonishing and beyond our understanding.”
This is God’s point of view. God is beyond our comprehension and all there is outside the Universe.
absolutely
Mjeck writes: ” It’s a paradox; paradoxes exist, and there is nothing wrong with that.”
Paradoxes are not the same as contradictions. Paradoxes expose the limits of understanding and communication. Contradictions pose an issue to be resolved. When trying to communicate, to claim something is a paradox when it’s a dodge to deal with a contradiction, something else is going on. Do you accept the principle of non-contradiction or not? [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_non-contradiction ] If not, are you not a fortiori into dialetheism [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialetheism ]?
Good questions. What are you? I’m going to read these; can I give you an answer another time?
Sure. No problem. Not everyone is right though, so be careful what you answer.
rt writes: “Mjeck, do have any suggestions? The fact that it’s so baffling is what makes it so fascinating.”
Mjeck responds: “…BBC had a show called, Dangerous Knowledge; on the pursuit of Infinity. It’s a good place to start.”
Fascination may indeed be dangerous, epsecially to the unwary. Why is ugliness and evil so fascinating? [ So bad it's good: Why do we find evil so much more fascinating than goodness? [ http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/features/so-bad-its-good-why-do-we-find-evil-so-much-more-fascinating-than-goodness-1965587.html ]
The pursuit of infinity or immortality may well be fascinating, but this is why story-tellers throughout human history have warned us of femme fatales [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Femme_fatale ]
How did we jump from infinity to ugliness and evil?
rt writes: “How did we jump from infinity to ugliness and evil?”
Have you not been reading my posts above.
I have.
We should also honor rt’s request to bracket this part of the argument (infinite regress), let it be true and see what’s next. I don’t like doing that because, like math, a proper understanding of the foundation needs to be there in order to build, but it’s fair to see what he sees as coming next.
Sorry I ignored you, rt. OK, if we hold it true, then what?
I argue to learn, so any frustration is growing pains, not directed at anyone personally. I’m sorry.
Hi Stacy — no need for any apology that I can see. Okay, so now we’re positing a first motion. What’s next? (This is your position, so I’m relying on you for the answer.)
Stacy writes: “…like math, a proper understanding of the foundation needs to be there in order to build…”
I agree. The unmoved mover proof is indeed one of the pillars of the foundation. It is also important to check the under-footing before pouring the foundation or setting the peers in concrete for the coming beams.
The under-footing of the principle of non-contradiction is critical in my experience. If the participants in this thread cannot all agree to accepting that principle, I fear communication will collapse, especially as some may want to use language games to deflect serious points.
So, I ask: do we all agree that the principle of non-contradiction is true or not?
I will assume Stacy agrees in view of her question. I will assume all the rest of us agree, letting silence give your answer that you do agree. Should you disagree or otherwise change your mind, please let us know.
Thanks.
John, I suspect this conversation will lead to the question “what is a thing,” and divisibility of material bodies, and thus eventually subatomic particles and thus quantum physics, so let me ask whether you consider a statement like, “a particle can be in multiple places at the same time” to be a violation of the principle of non-contradiction.
Alternatively, we could just soldier forward and tackle these things as they arise.
Bi-location is indeed an interesting concern. See [ http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02568a.htm ] However since it is not as foundational as the principle of non-contradiction at this point and since I must go cook dinner and am not capable of bi-locating for these purposes, I will soldier on and assume you to hold to the principle, though you appear to want to dodge it with questions about what a “thing” is. While I have an answer for you, I suspect you and I are not talking about the same “thing.” When I see your “thing,” I’ll note it. But your evasion of my question is noted as well.
“But your evasion of my question is noted as well.”
John, from your very first comment on this thread, I’ve been thinking you need to drink a tall cold glass of get-over-yourself.
However, I’m happy to continue the conversation with Stacy and the others.
Stacy,
This too is offered by way of back-filling the foundation. Where you want to take us next will doubtless be enlightening.
It may also we helpful in this discussion of the Unmoved Mover proof, to understand how Thomas Aquinas couched it in the context of the Summa Theologica. [ http://www.newadvent.org/summa/ ]
We may all want to recall the two prior brief articles within the same larger Question concerning the existence of God.
First Aquinas asks “Whether the existence of God is self-evident?” to which he answers as shown at this link: [ http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm#article1 ]
Second, he asks “Whether it can be demonstrated that God exists?” to which he answers as shown at this link: [ http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm#article2 ]
Only after dealing with these two prior concerns does he ask: “Whether God exists?” which he answers as shown at this link: [ http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm#article3 ]
In this third answer, the Unmoved Mover proof is offered in the Summa.
Here’s where I am.
I understand Aristotle’s proof, and I could explain it to a child.
It doesn’t matter how much you ponder infinity, one simple essential truth remains — there is no first.
Here’s where it seems rt and Mjeck are.
In an infinite series, there might be a first.
We’ve been given Aristotle’s proof that infinite regress is not possible. I wish we could at least hear a proof offered that the opposite is true. Until that is given, it seems we are being asked to move forward rejecting one proof for reasons unknown, and accepting another that is not even given.
Or something…
I’m sort of familiar with Cantor’s work, but I’m having trouble seeing why it would matter to this discussion.
From my perspective, I see a first great mover (behind the big bang), and yet, all around, I see infinite regression.
Infinite regression, to me, explains things like God being human, and the holy spirit dwelling within.
Infinite regression and fractals explain the process of creation
That is my perspective,
What is the “stuff” that makes up the great mover?
Learning about Cantor’s work has helped me immensely.
Stacy, the reasons for rejecting the proof are not unknown — you simply disagree with them. That’s different. And as I’ve said before, I’m not saying that infinite regression is true (and I’m certainly not asking you to); I’m saying I’m unconvinced that it’s been proven false. That’s different.
But still, I’m curious what happens when you accept the idea of a first motion, so can we just stipulate that and move on?
rt writes: “John, from your very first comment on this thread, I’ve been thinking you need to drink a tall cold glass of get-over-yourself.
“However, I’m happy to continue the conversation with Stacy and the others.”
Having reviewed rt’s comments on this post and the previous one, and especially this last comment directed at me, I suggest rt is being disingenuous in his comments.
I too am happy to continue the conversation with Stacy and the others. So long as rt continues to participate, I will reply to his comments to the extent mine help others see his for what they are.
Rt no longer seems to me to be truly interested in committing to any position he has not already examined and come to his own conclusions.
Rt’s approach to the conversation is indeed like the center of a circle that will not move unless rt chooses to move. Fair enough. Rt has free will and can exercise it. But while rt is free to write opinions ad nauseam, I question whether rt has yet to demonstrate entitlement to them.
rt,
I am ready for round three. I just woke up from a nights sleep and am having my first cup of coffee.
Let’s begin.
As my favored approach is always to ask questions instead of declaring a point, may we start here:
Why is it false to say that you, rt, are my mother?
Because I am not your mother.
rt,
Good start. By the way I know you were referring to Quantum nonlocality of science and not bi-location of spirituality.
You still have not answered my question. Not an attack.
You have only stated your belief. And have not shown that this is false to others also. It must be false absolutely or else we cannot answer that question at all
I have answered the question you asked. If you want to question how I can confirm that I am not your mother and convince others that I am not your mother, then you can ask that. But you didn’t. You asked why it was false to SAY I am your mother. And that’s a different altogether.
O.K. I’ll play.
Why is it false?
I’ve never had a uterus, haven’t ever adopted a child, and have never taken care of one for longer than a day at a time.
rt,
So then the next steps in my process of thinking is this.
You have defined what a mother is.
You have defined what you are.
It would be insanity or at the least unthinking to deny that both definitions are true absolutly?
Would it also be unthinking or the worst insanity to apply the meaning of each inappropriately in a question?
wait for the edit.
Howard, I know this is your preferred method, but it would likely work better if we were speaking in person, where we can easily ask and answer these question. Doing it this way on a message board, though, is much more laborious and time-consuming, and I simply can’t afford it, having put off too much of my yesterday’s work load to do so again today.
If you don’t want to simply tell me what you’re getting at, then we can continue using your preferred method by having me send you my phone number via email and setting up a time to chat on the phone.
By the way, to answer your question, I don’t know whether it would be the worst insanity to apply the meaning of these words inappropriately in a question, but it would certainly be (by tautology) inappropriate.
Sorry, typed and posted my response before I saw your request to wait.
rt,
That’s O.K. I just made a few corrections. You got them.
What I am getting at can only best be developed, considering my experience on this blog. To take off from that end point would only bring us back to the start. And that is where we make jello again ala “Groundhog Day”.
I am content to stay here. Catch up on your work.
I read a little about Georg Cantor last night and had a discussion with dear husband over dinner. He’s much more up to snuff on math history than I am. We both remember (but I cannot find it) reading (we think) in one of Stanley Jaki’s books about how Cantor and someone else argued about how the distance from one end of the room to the other was infinitely divisible. At the height of the arguing, Cantor holding that it is impossible to get from one point to the next, and the other fellow arguing that, in spite of infinite divisibility, we still can get from one point to the next (I will find the story), the guy proceeded to…walk the distance. There — proof.
Mjeck, is this what you are calling a paradox?
I understand Cantor’s work on set theory, and claims that infinity is actual, not potential. I still don’t understand how it affects the UM argument? Regardless of how anyone thinks about infinity or represents it in abstract mathematics, there remains no first or last.
The Outside of the Universe (God, UM) has some type of relationship to the Universe.
The Outside of the Universe (God,UM) must have some type of relationship to Infinite Regression (i.e. Fractals).
What is the domino behind God? UM? Outside of the Universe? A question not worth asking, trying to answer, or debate, for me.
What is the “stuff” inside God? UM? Outside the Universe?
Could be infinite regression.
Could be Jello.
Could be Dimensions
Could be everything you create in your own life; so that in the end, you get what you imagined, conceived, needed, wanted and deserve.
“Could be everything you create in your own life;..”
Not a joke, maybe it was the context, I read this as “…your own mind;….”
For Howard and rt
“How could I be your mother,” said the cow, “I am a cow.”
Stacy,
Because I was enthralled by and laughed during this story proves:
I am further into the winter of my life than I thought.
OR
Human regression is possible, maybe to infinity.
p.s. does your server translate HTML imbedded CSS commands.
I don’t know about CSS commands, I don’t even know what they are. It might though. I was surprised to see the embed code from a YT video show up correctly.
I’ve read that book a million times to our children. Both my husband and I can recite in our sleep. It was actually his joke when I was telling him about this discussion.
It was the iframe command in the email that caused me to ask. I’ll experiment.
Did the video show up or the command? I see the actual video, but I copied in the embed code.
Oh wait, I get it. You are reading the email, not the website.
Author: Stacy Trasancos
Comment:
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4Koi-RJATE&w=560&h=315
See all comments on this post here:
AND MORE..
I tried to send you the copied contents.
The email had just the iframe command and it’s info. No Utube video displayed, just the text.
It shows up fine in my browser.
For rt, about infinite regression, Zeno’s paradox (from a friend who is following along)
http://www.infobarrel.com/Solving_Zenos_paradox_-_How_the_Tortoise_overtook_the_Hare
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert%27s_paradox_of_the_Grand_Hotel
Thanks Stacy. I may start using “Planck length” as an expression: “I came within a Planck length of getting that promotion!”
There’s a similar concept called “Planck time.” As in, “If you don’t start cleaning room in one Planck time, there’ll be no dessert!”
(Of course, if you meant it you’d have to say it really, really, really fast.
)
I need a like button.
A like button. *** Warning a mild rant coming ***.
Another sign of human regression.
“Does she like me?”
“Yes, I can tell plus her friend said so.”
7 or 8 grade at least.
That is why I have a Facebook account, because I was curious, but don’t tell anyone. Along with the introduction of icons by Apple, we are in serious regression. Icons take us back to time before humans learned to read and write.
We are drifting backwards folks.
But Howard, I have over 1,000 friends on Facebook. Nooooooo.
Thanks Mjeck,
I’ve heard that one before, but it’s one of those abstract mathematics ideas that just show why abstract mathematics don’t produce anything useful. It’s nonsense, the same kind of play on words Howard is talking about.
There can be no countable infinity. The idea of infinite sets is absurd, it contradicts what infinity is.
Maybe that’s harsh. I learned how to do certain math problems in college and applied what I needed in the industry, but the abstract and history stuff I get from hubby who has made a living with applied mathematics. This sort of stuff makes him nuts, and I can understand why. It gets us nowhere.
Do you see where I’m coming from?
Still, in what way can any goofing around with the definition of infinity affect the UM argument? There is still no first or last.
Except that Set Theory is used in/as a programming language. So you can’t dismiss it out of hand.
Some guy (Cantor), thought about God and Infinity and created a complex answer; which is now used for practical purposes in programming language.
Video games and CGI movies get those huge expansive vista’s because of fractal theory. Otherwise, it would be impossible.
Infinity and God have a relationship with one another. You can’t dismiss it out of hand.
What language (computer?) are you referring to?
I have used several in my work life.
to start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SETL
Mjeck, the theory is not used AS A LANGUAGE.
Sets have been around longer that theorizing about them has and so have binary numbers.
In the computer world hundreds of languages have been developed for specific and general purpose. One of the more widespread uses that came out of understanding sets are various data bases. What cannot be done in the computer world is blend the unknown with the known and call it the same thing. Computers do not operate on theory they operate using only what is known.
Each of those statements are incorrect.
Can’t teach an old dog new tricks
In fact, looking at the sample code of SETL it could translate into COBOL, BASIC, RPG, etc.
Very familiar loops.
procedure factorial(n); — calculates the factorial n!
return if n = 1 then 1 else n * factorial(n – 1) end if;
end factorial;
————————
Quickly done this SETL code means this.
procedure factorial(n)
START OF A LOOP NAMED FACTORIAL PASSING A PARAMETER N BACK
— calculates the factorial n!
THIS IS A COMMENT ONLY NO PROCESSING.
Return
THIS IS WHAT YOU DO WHEN N=1
if n = 1 then 1
RETURN
else n * factorial(n – 1)
CALCULATE
end if;
END OF THE IF DROP TO THE NEXT LINE
end factorial;
ENDS THE LOOP RETURNS TO WHATEVER CALLED IT
Upon a longer look. It more likley is a one time pass through the code with a protection against n=1. The purpose being to simplify the ability to calculate with less writing. Without knowing the exact underlying math calculations it is more difficult.
Computer programming languages are readily compared and show great similarities because they are produced to deal with similar tasks. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_programming_languages ]
The logic involved in such programming languages is rarely classical logic, though to have meaning it must resort to it for humans to understand in the larger context of meaningful communication. See Socratic Logic by Peter Kreeft [ http://www.amazon.com/Socratic-Logic-Questions-Aristotelian-Principles/dp/1587318083/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1357929373&sr=8-1&keywords=socratic+logic ]
Modern logic is symbolic manipulation of conditional propositions. Modern reasoning has become largely hypothetical as a result. In the process nominalism and utilitarianism are but two of the consequences.
The larger problem is that language itself is called into question and as a result, people fall in to playing language games. Wittgenstein’s approach is a curse upon all of us.
According to the Stanford Encylcpedia of Philosophy article on Wittegenstein and the nature of philosophy: “The later Wittgenstein holds, as he did in the Tractatus, that philosophers do not—or should not—supply a theory, neither do they provide explanations. ‘Philosophy simply puts everything before us, nor deduces anything.—Since everything lies open to view there is nothing to explain’ (PI 126) [Philosophical Investigation]. The anti-theoretical stance is reminiscent of the early Wittgenstein, but there are manifest differences. Although the Tractatus precludes philosophical theories, it does construct a systematic edifice which results in the general form of the proposition, all the while relying on strict formal logic; the Investigations points out the therapeutic non-dogmatic nature of philosophy, verily instructing philosophers in the ways of therapy. ‘The work of the philosopher consists in assembling reminders for a particular purpose’ (PI 127). Working with reminders and series of examples, different problems are solved. Unlike the Tractatus which advanced one philosophical method, in the Investigations ‘there is not “a” philosophical method, though there are indeed methods, like different therapies’ (PI 133). This is directly related to Wittgenstein’s eschewal of the logical form or of any a-priori generalization that can be discovered or made in philosophy. Trying to advance such general theses is a temptation which lures philosophers; but the real task of philosophy is both to make us aware of the temptation and to show us how to overcome it. Consequently ‘a philosophical problem has the form: ‘I don’t know my way about.” ‘ (PI 123), and hence the aim of philosophy is ‘to shew the fly out of the fly-bottle’ (PI 309).”
Those stuck in the fly-bottle of solipsism and agnostism, if not atheism, may hunt for their way out, but can’t see it. Why?
Perhaps it is not time. Perhaps we are not the ones to help them understand. Or perhaps they have simply not surrendered yet to the Other that is pulling them out of themselves.
Computers and computer languages can have magical properties for many people. The only thing extraordinary is speed. There is no intuition, no creation, no humor, no sadness, no emotion, no soul.
All computers and computer languages can do is give commands to lifeless machines.
this is gett beyond me but will keep reading.
I don’t know anything about Cantor, don’t think his first name was
Eric, or of the Zina paradox – hope that is spelled right; know nothing about ‘computer language’ or quantium stuff. I’m more defined in some areas but not this one.
I did like the video on ‘are you my mom!’
rt mentioned using logic and this might be rigth: “You can use logic to justify almost anything. That’s its power and its flaw.” – CAPTAIN KATHRYN JANEWAY, Star Trek: Voyager, “Prime Factors” (1995).
“I’m a man of logic. I’m a man of planning. I consider every detail. I factor in every possibility. Then I flip a coin.” – RYAN O’REILY, Oz, “Secret Identities” (1999).
one more: “if you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the solution.” – Spock
I will go now silently to reading the back and forth going on.
I think Spock stole that from Sherlock Holmes.
A Hollywood director once asked me why “Star Trek” (the original) was so popular with young people since I was member of that group, and, we were talking. The only thing that came to mind was that it was so real to the viewer. The people were very likeable. The situations were believable and the context was accepted as possible.
That show was to be dropped because of ratings, but heavy mail from fans caused it to be retained. And the rest is …….
It is not real. And the quotes are no more usable than the insight of the writer that created them.
Decades ago when I wrote my first serious artificial intelligence engine, I admitted that the “conversation” went something like this.
Me: “okay program, here are the numbers representing the period of planetary orbits around the sun and their distance from the sun, do you see anything interesting in those numbers?”
Program: “what is a ‘number’?” “what is an ‘equation?” “what are the ‘rules of arithmetic’?”
Me: “Oh dear. You’re basically making me explain the whole thing, aren’t you? Okay, okay, the answer is, Kepler’s 2nd Law, never mind.”
It ceased being fun for me.
That reminds me of something Peter Kreeft wrote in the book I started reading today. He asks: “If our brains were not designed by God but by Satan or by no one, why should we trust them? Would you trust a computer programmed by randomly throwing marbles at its keyboard?”
I was with RT, that the reasoning regarding infinite regression seemed circular to me. If Thomas Aquinas says it isn’t circular, then it must not be, but it still looks like it to me.
But, the impossibility of infinite regression doesn’t seem difficult to me. “Things” that move are things. Things exist in time. Time had a beginning. Things did not exist before time existed. Doesn’t that explain the impossibility of infinite regression? If time has no beginning or end, it isn’t time. It’s infinity.
If Aquinas wanted to take Aristotle’s belief and make it fit to his god, so be it. But this argument doesn’t point to a god, in my opinion. It points to an “I don’t know.”
Let’s say that infinite regression is impossible. Why is the ultimate cause of motion god? Could there be multiple causes? Why do you have to attribute it to GOD (by a Catholic definition). Why not simply say that you believe in a beginning, a “first domino” but accept that you do not KNOW what that first domino was. Aristotle’s god was a lot different from yours, the ultimate source of this movement is arbitrary.
Further, cause and effect lies within the realm of our reality. Using a cause and effect argument to explain a god that resides beyond any physical law is illogical, is it not? Unless you believe that god is bound by the laws of the known universe (which I don’t believe would support the core belief in god’s omnipotence). I too, like rt, see a very circular argument.
This blog was sent to me as a way of trying to open my eyes (I was a devout Catholic turned Atheist). It lead me to do more research on the subject which left me more unconvinced then where I started off.
Anyway I appreciate the debate and enjoyed the learning experience. It’s nice to come across a civil, somewhat intellectual argument between both parties for once.
Sharon and J, Welcome!
Help me out, help me to see where you are coming from on the circular argument thing. Rt, you too.
The definition of a circular argument is one in which the the conclusion is contained in the premise. It is a argument of the form: A is true because B is true; B is true because A is true.
This argument has the form:
Infinity has no first or last.
In an ordered series of motion, a first thing must exist.
Therefore, there can be no ordered series of motion that proceeds to infinity.
I linked a very long list of Catholic scientists and mathematicians. Presumably they had no problem with the arguments (and there many more that this one) that are proofs of God’s existence. What is Aristotle, St. Aquinas, all of them, and little old confused me missing that you see?
Are you saying that it’s just so obvious that there can be no infinite regression that it seems circular? Because certainly, if something has a first or last, then it is no longer infinite, but finite, right? But then you still say infinite regression is true, or might be true. On what basis?
“What is Aristotle, St. Aquinas, all of them, and little old confused me missing that you see?”
I’d be careful with that rhetorical strategy.
J,
“Let’s say that infinite regression is impossible. Why is the ultimate cause of motion god? Could there be multiple causes? Why do you have to attribute it to GOD (by a Catholic definition). Why not simply say that you believe in a beginning, a “first domino” but accept that you do not KNOW what that first domino was. Aristotle’s god was a lot different from yours, the ultimate source of this movement is arbitrary.”
I don’t like “let’s say” unless there is a reason given, an argument. Can you give one?
You could call “God” something else, in fact Aristotle and Plato both did (and others). This one argument does not contain everything the Church teaches about God, there is much, much more, more than we can ever put into words. This one proof (like I said, there are others) just shows that based on what we observe in the natural world, we can articulate a proof that there necessarily must be a first mover, something outside of time and space that began time and space.
The human mind is also another proof.
(We try to keep the dialogue positive. It is sometimes intense, but I think most people here find that humor is a valuable tool for reminding us that none of us knows everything.)
“In an ordered series of motion, a first thing must exist.”
But this is just another way of saying that infinite regression is impossible. Ergo, this premise assumes your conclusion, and your reasoning is circular.
Stacy, maybe this will help you clear what could very well by my own confusion:
I do not see a difference in meaning between these two statements:
1. In an ordered series of motion, a first thing must exist.
2. Infinite regression is impossible.
Statement 1 is your premise. Statement 2 is your conclusion. But to me, statements 1 and 2 have the same meaning. I don’t mean that one logically follows from the other: I mean they are the same statement, with no difference except in the phrasing.
That’s why I keep coming back to the circular reasoning critique.
Then what is the argument that this statement is false?
In an ordered series of motion, a first thing must exist.
How can that be anything but true? What is the counter-argument? I understand better what you mean about circular reasoning, but the above statement isn’t something we are being asked to accept with no reason. How do you have an ordered series of motion without a first thing?
“But this is just another way of saying that infinite regression is impossible. Ergo, this premise assumes your conclusion, and your reasoning is circular.”
So to say that infinity has no first or last is to make a circular argument? But — that’s the definition of infinity, a necessary definition, otherwise it’s not infinite, it’s finite. That’s not circular reasoning, that’s doubting the meaning of words. If we must doubt the meaning of words, then you need to give a reason why.
Wouldn’t 2+2=4 be circular reasoning too, then?
“I do not see a difference in meaning between these two statements:
1. In an ordered series of motion, a first thing must exist.
2. Infinite regression is impossible.”
The first is proven via logic.
The second is not disproven because it was not a part of the problem.
As far as I can tell, Howard, Stacy put forth the first statement as a self-evident premise, not as something proven via logic.
Also, I have never said that “Infinite regression is impossible” has been disproven. Merely that it has never been proven.
“Then what is the argument that this statement is false?” But I’m not saying it’s false. At no point in this thread have I ever said it is false. I’ve said that every proof of it offered on this page is circular.
“So to say that infinity has no first or last is to make a circular argument?”
Not saying that at all. I didn’t even mention this premise in my response. (By the way, the set of positive integers is infinite but can be said have a first element — the number one — but I hesitate to say this because that statement “Infinity has no first or last” is not where I’m locating the circularity).
I’m saying this: That until someone can explain the difference between these two statements:
1. In an ordered series of motion, a first thing must exist.
2. Infinite regression is impossible.
Then I will continue to believe the proof offered here is circular.
And let me stress. To say that the proof of a statement is circular is not to assert that the statement is wrong, merely that this particular proof of it is flawed.
“based on what we observe in the natural world, we can articulate a proof that there necessarily must be a first mover, something outside of time and space that began time and space.”
I would say that what we observe in the natural world is by definition different in kind from what is outside of time and space; thus we cannot draw solid conclusions by arguing from one to the other.
rt,
The first statement can be proven empirically also.
It follows that not being part of the problem that infinite regression is also not proven.
(my computer is running slow)
“The first statement [In an ordered series of motion, a first thing must exist] can be proven empirically also.”
Then please do so! But please keep in mind what I just wrote to Stacy in my comment at January 13, 2013 at 9:27 pm.
In an ordered series of motion, a first thing must exist.
Put “an ordered series” of objects on the table in front of you.
Okay. How many objects do you want me to line up?
How many implies a finite world that exists in time. The one objects exist in. Lets go imaginary, no limit. Let me know when you are done.
Okay. I’ve lined up as many objects as there are integers (positive and negative). In fact, I’ve labeled each one with a different integer, and put them in that order.
Are they moving?
I don’t know. This is your visualization. Do you want them to be?
No, not so easy.
You are the one who is setting them up. You have eyes on the problem. You have the experience with an infinite number of objects. Maybe the only one ever.
“You have the experience with an infinite number of objects.”
Really? I don’t know where you get that from. Because as you know, I have yet to assert that infinite regression is even possible.
In any, according to what you’ve set up, the answer must be no, the objects are not moving. Movement implies change, change implies the passage of time, and you’ve indicated that we are not in the realm of a “world that exists in time.”
Unless I got that wrong.
I’m more concerned about this notion of yours that I have “experience with an infinite number of objects.” Where did that come from?
“Lets go imaginary, no limit”
“Okay. I’ve lined up as many objects as there are integers (positive and negative). In fact, I’ve labeled each one with a different integer, and put them in that order.”
O.K. now are you playing games with me. I understood you to be following instructions.
How does my scenario conflict with your “ordered series of objects” that is “imaginary, no limit”?
Be fair, Howard. You like leading me on these lengthy step-by-step socratic explanations without letting me know where you’re going. If you expect me to cooperate, then I have the right to expect you to be exact in what each step is.
Thank you. I’ve never been compared to Socrates before.
I actually only expected your cooperation until we reached where we were going, not past it.
Again, how have I violated that cooperation? How does my scenario conflict with your “ordered series of objects” of a magnitude that is “imaginary, no limit”?
I see no inexactitude on my part.
You satisfied my statement when you asked how many!
Why go on except to see how an infinite series could possibly enter the problem. Your Idea all along.
Now, threatening a walkout is not nice.
“Now, threatening a walkout is not nice.”
I have no idea where that came from or what prompted it.
Meanwhile, you’ve accused me of playing games and have implied that I’m not cooperating. Now THAT’S not nice! So again, please explain: How does my scenario conflict with your “ordered series of objects” of a magnitude that is “imaginary, no limit”?
If you want to disqualify my answer as valid, then at least explain why.
” If you expect me to cooperate…….”
Not a threat?
The first instance of this problem was in time, the finite world we know and love.
We moved on to imagination and infinity. You took on the task to do the work. So complete it.
If you insist on comparing the two, then tell me, what is the first number in your series that you said you set up and what does the object look like that you assigned it to?
I can assure you that I was not threatening a walk-out.
“The first instance of this problem was in time, the finite world we know and love.”
In what post did this first instance occur? I see only one instance in our subthread.
“If you insist on comparing the two, then tell me, what is the first number in your series that you said you set up and what does the object look like that you assigned it to?”
When did we establish that there is a first number in my series? I thought that’s what you promised “can be proven empirically.” Yet your question assumes, rather than proves, this to be so.
” I’ve labeled each one with a different integer, and put them in that order.”
I can only work with what you have given me. I suspect that you have not actually finished labeling.
“I suspect that you have not actually finished labeling.”
In this non-finite world you set up outside of time (in your January 13, 2013 at 10:42 pm response) “finish” is a meaningless concept, as is “begin” because both imply the existence of time.
Or, more to the point, what I have given you does not violate the parameters you yourself set up for this thought experiment. The danger of your socratic approach is that you may not get the answers you want. When that happens you’ve got two choices: explain why the answer does fit the parameter of your question, or try again with a new question.
But I’ve been operating fairly — or, more specifically, operating within the rules you set up.
I’m okay with starting over with a new question if you want.
“Put “an ordered series” of objects on the table in front of you.”
” Lets go imaginary, no limit”
Two separate worlds.
You cannot take your imagination and move it to the physical world or the other way around. Nothing is violated that I have said.
If you wish to generate illusions then they are yours. A numbered set that you imagine is true and complete in time cannot be put on a real table. We can stay in Wonderland and conjure up other things we wish to port to reality but time is passing for me.
HOLD ON!
1. You gave me an instruction.
2. I asked for clarification.
3. You answered.
4. I operated exactly according to the clarification you provided.
This sequence is truly how I see our exchange. I understand that you view it differently, but I don’t understand what they view is. Can you let me where your perceived sequence differs from my perceived sequence?
Let me step back and tell you my broader perspective. When you told you me to put an ordered series on the table, and I asked “how many?”, I saw this going one of two ways:
Either you would limit me to a finite number or you would not.
If you didn’t limit me to a finite number, then we’d find ourselves exactly where we are now, with no first number necessary.
If you DID limit me to a finite number, then I would object that you are STARTING the conversation by insisting on a first number — but the existence of this is the very thing you’re trying to prove, so it can’t be the first step in your proof.
Either way, you haven’t made good on your promise to empirically prove that a first thing must exist.
Finally, keep in mind that it’s true: I cannot set up an infinite line of objects in a finite time, but that proves nothing about the nature of existence because I myself am not all of existence.
I didn’t ask you to imagine any thing except “How many?”
You did the imagining and now cannot port them to the physical world. Imagining is the only way a complete infinite set could be brought into the question. We are in time. The infinite is not.
That’s all kind of beside the point of whether I was answering the question according to your specifications. I was. And I’ll continue to believe that until you tell show me how I violated the parameters you laid out.
” We are in time. The infinite is not.”
Then why did you did tell me to think BEYOND a finite world that exists in time (your parameter, not mine) if your goal was to provide an empirical proof (which according to you, must exist IN time).
You know, Howard, we’re just arguing about the argument now. Let’s go back to the beginning. You said you could provide an empirical proof that “In an ordered series of motion, a first thing must exist.”
Go!
Again.
I limited you to nothing at all except what was in the original statement.
If you had stuck to physical objects we would be done.
I gave you the OPPORTUNITY to use infinity in the only way it can be used – not finite. I never claimed to be able to prove anything beyond the physical.
St. Thomas Aquinas’s original statements speaks of the physical. Not what rt can imagine.
I think the cards are on the table. so to speak.
“I gave you the OPPORTUNITY to use infinity in the only way it can be used”
But why did you tell me I could go there if you were trying to set up an empirical proof? I don’t understand what point you were making.
I wasn’t.
Okay. I’ll restrict myself to the physical world. I have three objects lined up in front of me.
What next?
Push the first one into the next. Now we are done. Motion must have a beginning.
How does it feel to be God.
“I wasn’t.”
Howard, sorry, I thought this whole subthread stemmed from my request that you provide an empirical proof. That certainly is the “causal chain” that got us started (in this case there IS a first action!).
If that’s not what you were trying to do, then what the heck is the point of what we’ve been talking about and why didn’t you clue me in that you changed the topic?
I gave you the proof in my last post.
I don’t know where you would get the idea that I would try and fit infinity into emphirical proof.
Actually, I have two separate responses, both of which I’d like you to address:
1. Empirically, my pushing the book (it was a thesaurus and two atlases) was not the first motion. I had previously put the books in place. Prior to that, I had taken them off the shelf. And so on, go back to before the books were in my possession, so I cannot identify what the prior causes were, much less establish the existence of a first cause.
2. Logically (and this is much more important), all this demonstration could establish is that a first motion CAN exist (though it doesn’t even establish that, as I showed in point 1). HOWEVER, this is not what you promised; you promised a proof that a first motion MUST exist, and this single demonstration does not establish that.
As I said, point 2 is more important, though point 1 is not trivial.
I thought you were trying to establish an empirical proof because that’s what set this whole subthread off! And because I can’t pretend a telepathic knowledge of where your argument is going, so for all I know you had some way in mind (valid or not) of bringing it back around.
Which leaves me wondering (still): If that’s not what you were trying to do, then what the heck is the point of what we’ve been talking about and why didn’t you clue me in that you changed the topic?
I did follow through with proof. I also showed you that infinity cannot be used in this problem.
What did you expect the end points to be? I have been giving you my position ever since yesterday, or was it the day before, or before that.
We see motion therefore motion had to begin. Not maybe.
“Empirically, my pushing the book (it was a thesaurus and two atlases) was not the first motion. I had previously put the books in place. Prior to that, I had taken them off the shelf. And so on, go back to before the books were in my position, so I cannot identify what the prior causes were, much less establish the existence of a first cause.”
If God hides his actions from me then how the heck am I to get the first right? Notice I said “first”.
“If that’s not what you were trying to do, then what the heck is the point of what we’ve been talking about and why didn’t you clue me in that you changed the topic?”
Can you answer this question for me?
Getting late. Later.
“I also showed you that infinity cannot be used in this problem.”
All we established is that a finite being (me) cannot line up an infinite of objects. I never disputed that. But reminding me that I am finite does not establish that all existence is finite.
Ultimately, your position comes down to this: “I regard it as self-evident that a first motion must exist, but I cannot prove it empirically.”
I thought we were just talking. My positions were not unknown to you. Conversation leads somewhere. We are here.
I see what happened. You intended your (January 13, 2013 at 10:42 pm) post as a proof, as a demonstration of your conclusion.
I did not see it as such. See my (January 14, 2013 at 12:41 am) post for why. Instead, I thought your post was just the next step in your proof.
I can now see why you thought I was playing games with you — and why later I thought you were just messing with me and evading my questions. None of those things were happening; we just had a misinterpretation that sent us on a LOOOONG detour!
Anyway, have a good night.
“If God hides his actions from me then how the heck am I to get the first right? Notice I said “first”.”
Yes. I notice that you are assuming that there is a “first” without proving that it exists.
1. In an ordered series of motion, a first thing must exist.
2. Infinite regression is impossible.
^^^That is just like saying if you count from 1 to 10, you must have a first number. It’s inherent in the definition of “ordered series of motion.” I honestly don’t know how you “prove” that to someone. To that extent, I guess that if reasoning depends on definitions, ALL arguments are circular.
I just don’t find that very satisfying. It seems like evasion. I’d like to know what the flaw is, other than just to say it’s circular. (That, oddly, is circular reasoning. “It’s circular because it’s circular.”)
If the proof is flawed, and its being flawed depends on the definition of “ordered series of motion” then can you please elaborate? In my mind, I see one thing happening, then the next which is caused by the previous, and so on. What else could it mean?
Again, what did Aristotle, Aquinas, and all those other folks miss?
And, again, what about 2+2=4? Wouldn’t that also be circular logic. Wouldn’t any equation then?
Sure, if you’re counting from 1 to 10, you have a first number. But by laying out this situation, you’re STARTING your demonstration by insisting on a first number — but the NECESSARY existence of this (in all cases) is the very thing you’re trying to prove, so it proves nothing to START by positing that such a number exists.
“I would say that what we observe in the natural world is by definition different in kind from what is outside of time and space; thus we cannot draw solid conclusions by arguing from one to the other.”
100% disagree. If we can’t make inferences based on observation, then anyone can say that anything is true. The proof of God doesn’t require you to go outside of time and space, but all time and space point to it as a necessary truth.
Sorry, I am stuck with the same view as rt.
As I read through this, saying that something started the ball rolling (in your case- god) is the same as saying that infinite regression is impossible. But I don’t necessarily believe that infinite regression is impossible. If you believe that the law of cause and effect applies all the way back to “god” then why is god exempt from this rule? While I find the idea of infinity difficult to wrap my head around, I have not disregarded the possibility. I simply don’t know.
I do acknowledge all of the other “proofs” for god. However, I find that they end up raising more questions. For example, I have done a lot of looking in to the subject of free will from a neuropsychological point of view. While a lot of evidence points toward free will being illusory, we do not know enough about the brain to jump to that conclusion yet. I need not attribute these mysteries to a god.
When I say, “let’s say that infinite regression is impossible,” I am ultimately saying “let’s say that the first domino exists” for the sake or argument.
Stacy, please, I have done more than “just to say it’s circular.” I have done this:
1. I have pointed out two statements: one them being the conclusion you are trying to prove (Infinite regression is impossible) and the other being a premise in your argument (In an ordered series of motion, a first thing must exist).
2. I have said that the premise and conclusion seem to be nothing more than different ways of saying the same thing.
3. I have explained that this is why I consider the argument circular.
4. I have acknowledged that I may merely be confused.
5. I have asked to have the difference between these statements explained to me (such a difference would be necessary in order to keep the premise from being a mere rephrasing of the conclusion, i.e., circular reasoning).
In other words, it’s circular because it’s circular.
Can you answer the question about 2+2=4? Isn’t that circular too then?
It’s circular because there is a definition of circular argument that existed prior to this conversation. Several conditions must be must and I have demonstrated to the best of my ability that those conditions have been met. That is not the same thing as saying, “It’s circular because it’s circular.”
I don’t see the parallel between that 2 + 2 = 4. So I can’t address your question “Isn’t that circular, too, then?” because I don’t the connection you’re making with that “then”.
“If we can’t make inferences based on observation, then anyone can say that anything is true.”
No. We can make statement about what is true in the realm which we can observe. But you’re going beyond that.
Haha, J — No. You. Didn’t!!!
Ah, you brought up free will. Oh boy, we’ve been at that one a lot around here. It’s one of my favorite topics though. You’re right to bring it up too, it’s as much a part of the discussion as infinity.
“If you believe that the law of cause and effect applies all the way back to “god” then why is god exempt from this rule?”
Believe me, the great scholars and theologians and philosophers (including the mathematicians and scientists I linked) did not just overlook that. They didn’t just forget to say, “Oh, yeah, duh, what caused God.” That’s like asking what caused the thing that wasn’t caused. It’s the “thing that wasn’t caused” that logic leads to. It’s necessary. There had to be an Uncaused Cause, Unmoved Mover, something that needed no cause or motion.
Hi J: “When I say, “let’s say that infinite regression is impossible,” I am ultimately saying “let’s say that the first domino exists” for the sake or argument.”
I’ve been saying just that for days.
Yeah haha I noticed. I’m just trying to explain that to Stacy.
Stacy how about this:
If the premise “Everything must have a cause” leads necessarily to the conclusion, “There must be an Uncaused Cause,” then the premise contradicts itself and must not be true.
J,
On free will and free thought, and the ability to reason:
God is proven to be true, to exist. However, there are also lots of things that cannot be proven.
For instance, you can’t prove that human reason is trustworthy. All your thoughts could be the product of brain molecules doing their thing, something you have no control over (as materialism holds). But if that is true, then you’d have to use your “reason” to prove it, which is actually what we call “begging the question” (another word for circular reasoning).
You’re assuming the thing to be true that you’re supposed to be proving — that we can reason.
God is not proven to be true, or to exist.
I realize I opened up a can of worms and this convo could go on for months. I’m not to thrilled either, sorry. I just handed in a massive paper on the subject of free will being illusory and found that both sides were severely lacking. Our thoughts are the spontaneous firing of neurons, the release of NT’s and the experiences we have. Yes, I assume that we can reason within that context. I am not saying it is reliable, but free will does not = ability to reason. In my opinion, “free will” is severely limited to the confines of our biology, and thus we are not as in control as we seem to be. That is where you and I get “stuck,” because you believe in a soul and an extension of the human mind that allows for the “freedom” aspect of our will. Whereas I remain unconvinced.
“If the premise “Everything must have a cause” leads necessarily to the conclusion, “There must be an Uncaused Cause,” then the premise contradicts itself and must not be true.”
Again, that’s not some gotcha that those smart guys just overlooked for the last 3,000 years. “Everything” is defined as matter in time and space, bodies, things in the physical world. The laws of motion depend on this.
I’m not trying to do gotchas! I can only ask you to take my word for that.
The toddler I was trapped under is awake now, and I have to get up from my chair. Thanks folks! Have a great evening, or day, or night, depending on where you are. Will respond tomorrow.
Stacy, there’s a difference between deduction and circular reasoning. (I know you’re aware of much of what follows, but please bear with me — I need to say it all to make a coherent point).
Euclid developed his geometry with four axioms and a postulate. He combined these and developed step-by-step proofs for a number of theorems, theorems that require a logical chain and are not always immediately obvious from his axioms and postulate.
Circular reasoning is not deduction — it shortcuts deduction by using the conclusion as part of the proof. When Euclid used his four axioms and his postulate to prove the angles opposite the two equal sides of an isosceles triangle are equal, he didn’t include the statement “the angles opposite the two equal sides of an isosceles triangle are equal” as a step in his proof. Doing so would have been circular reasoning.
But that’s exactly what I think you are doing. Because you use the premise “In an ordered series of motion, a first thing must exist” to prove “Infinite regression is impossible.” As far as I can tell, though, those statements have identical meaning, hidden simply by the different phrasing.
So as far as I’m concerned, that’s like attempting to prove the angles opposite the two equal sides of an isosceles triangle are equal by ASSUMING the angles opposite the two equal sides of an isosceles triangle are equal.
Now, as I’ve said before, if you can explain the difference in meaning between those two statement, I’ll have to reconsider my position that you’re merely assuming your conclusion.
Rt,
Your bet is on infinity with no entropy.
So is mine, but it is intelligent, and not matter.
Stacy,
I think the part that I have a problem with in this:
Infinity has no first or last.
In an ordered series of motion, a first thing must exist.
Therefore, there can be no ordered series of motion that proceeds to infinity.
Is the second sentence, but I think that’s because it isn’t explained WHY a first thing must exist. My explanation to myself (that things exist in time and time is finite) actually did help me to understand. It might not be a GOOD way to understand, but I least it puts me on a par with your nine year old.
Sharon,
I didn’t mean to imply my nine year old is some genius, it’s just that children don’t overcomplicate things.
It is explained why, I summarized it in the original post.
2) Or, in an ordered series of movers and things moved in succession (a series where one thing is moved by another), but a succession that proceeds to infinity, there still must be identified a first mover. Why? Because if there is no first mover, there is no thing moved. If the first mover is removed, or ceases to move, no other mover will move or be moved. The first mover is the cause of motion for all the others. There can be no infinite series of intermediate movers, it is a logical impossibility.
The domino “ordered series of movers” is useful here. How does the succession of falling dominoes start?
rt,
You call this a circular argument, even though Aquinas gave three proofs, summarized in the original post. When I said you are calling this a circular argument because it’s circular, you gave a list of five opinions of your own.
Which is it for you? If a list of your opinions constitutes objective deduction, then what puts your opinion above all those other people who saw Aristotle’s/Aquinas’ proofs as objectively true?
(It’s not a fallacy to appeal to legitimate and demonstrated authority. It is a fallacy to appeal to personal opinion as if it were above other authority.)
I suspect the dismissal on the grounds of “rt thinks it’s circular” is because you do clearly see the reasoning, so much so that it seems like the premise restates the conclusion, and you just cannot bring yourself to admit it.
You think these two statements are synonymous.
1. In an ordered series of motion, a first thing must exist.
2. Infinite regression is impossible.
This was the actual summary. The actual words of Aquinas are linked.
2) Or, in an ordered series of movers and things moved in succession (a series where one thing is moved by another), but a succession that proceeds to infinity, there still must be identified a first mover. Why? Because if there is no first mover, there is no thing moved. If the first mover is removed, or ceases to move, no other mover will move or be moved. The first mover is the cause of motion for all the others. There can be no infinite series of intermediate movers, it is a logical impossibility.
If you think that’s not deduction, then, I don’t know what else to say so I’ll just let it go and move on. It’s disappointing that you nuh-uh the proof while never offering one to the contrary, but I’m not sure how anyone could offer a proof that there is a first in infinity even though there’s not. I guess we’ll end with your response that Aristotle was only begging the question, even though he practically coined the term, because he had some lapse in clearheadedness, one so difficult to see that scholars down through the ages missed it until you came along.
To quote Peter Kreeft, who quoted C.S. Lewis, “I felt in my bones that this universe does not explain itself.” (Here is his response to those who say infinite regress is possible.)
It was a fun exercise. Thanks for participating so enthusiastically. I know you don’t take this stuff lightly.
Hi Stacy,
It’s been good having this conversation, and worthwhile to dig into the matter with gusto. But it’s the work week again and I can’t participate the way I did over the weekend. Thanks your patience and good humor.
Rob
Sharon,
One last thing in case the “why” isn’t answered well enough. There’s a difference in bodies in motion and abstract numbers. Numbers can go on to infinity, we know they must, but physical bodies in motion are a matter of cause and effect. One thing causes the next thing. Since there is that cause-effect relationship between moving things (like dominoes falling) matter and motion cannot go on until infinity. This is why there must have been a beginning to the universe.
Hoping your “one last thing” signals at least a break in this thread of discussion, what lessons have participants learned about this form of give and take? What is the underlying cause of the apparent passing of ships in the darkness of night? Are matters resolved by agreeing to disagree? Or are there deeper lessons to be learned? If so what are they?
One last comment and I promise to shut up.
In an infinite set of jelly beans, is it possible to eat one?
Yes, Set Theory explains how it’s possible to add and remove from Infinity;
Cantor had to break the rules of math logic to achieve this answer;
This might be why Stacy is having trouble with this idea; as it breaks the rules of logic to achieve its answer.
Is there merit to breaking the rules of logic?
I would say yes, with evidence.
Stacy and Howard may conclude no.
I currently accept this existing paradox.
Howard, only one? Not if they are all cinnamon!
I have learned so much in this discussion. Thank you all. I can’t believe that now I’m interested in Thomas A, and philosophy . God is so awesome … thank you all again…
Jim,
Thank you! I totally get the excitement. God is so awesome!
Mjeck,
In the paradox of…
1) Theoretically, if you kept taking steps that were half the remaining distance, you’d never cross the room.
2) Yet, actually, you can take steps of equal length and get there just fine.
…I accept that. It is one of those profound but simple mysteries. I see God in truths like that. How do we know these things? Where did that come from?
I just, still, don’t see how that paradox affects the Unmoved Mover argument which refers to moving bodies in succession, not abstractions.
Could you accept the paradox that God does not exist; and yet exists at the same time?
Nope. No more than I could accept that anything both does and does not exist. One has to be true. That’s the nature of beings.
Hmmm, isn’t hell the absence of God?
I think that could be your difficulty; these ideas break the rules of logic.
You may never see any benefit to understanding the world in this way
Mjeck,
Your comment is another indication of why the principle of non-contradiction is so critical to understanding. Those who do not understand it or do not begin with it, confuse themselves and others they are trying to communicate with. Do you accept the principle of not?
Paradoxes exist;
I think you defined a paradox as, things that are not yet understood… or something to that affect.
I don’t have any position on contradictions. If you define a contradiction as, something that is inherently impossible to exist; then by definition, there is nothing to consider.
If you define contradictions in another way, then I would certainly enjoy debating on the side that contradictions do in fact exist; and concede if I could not find any.
i have no hard position on the matter.
By not having a “hard position” on the principle of non-contradiction, you open yourself up to unnecessary confusion and endless looping debates, which you may find fun, but I see as a waste of time. Unless one can determine the source of the problem.
So do you agree that a thing can be and not be at the same time in the same respect?
When you think of this as a choice, which you can go back and change, you open yourself up to confusion. When you view it as a matter of judgment, with all attendant hypothetical disclaimers, you will lose your sense of judgment. When you make a decision about accepting the principle, you will have the opportunity to have a happy life. But only if you decide the right, the fitting way.
So what is your choice, your judgment, your decision?
If you said,
“I saw Oprah on TV last night.”
And I said,
“No you had not, in fact you only ever saw excited electrons. You’ve never seen Oprah.”
Is that a contradiction?
I will answer your question about Oprah sightings after you answer my question first. Once you work out your answer, the answer to seeing Oprah will be patently obvious.
So, you propose there to be no contradictions in existence; and i need to work out for you how no contradiction exists? And that what i propose (Oprah) is not a contradiction? When I only mildly care about this?
Are you sure it’s me that likes long winded debates?
Your Oprah example is an evasion. You don’t know how to answer and as a result you may continue the debate with yourself. Until you come to your own decision about whether to accept the principle of non-contradiction you will continually confuse yourself, make communication with you virtually impossible and you will be stuck talking to yourself. God be with you.
You cannot explain to me why Oprah is not a contradiction, nor can you explain to me what it would imply either way.
to Howards question: “In an infinite set of jelly beans, is it possible to eat one?” Yes it is if one has the will power to walk away after eating one, but alas, I don’t have that will power, but easier than trying to stop after one piece of Chocolate.
Me neither, Richard!
Richard, don’t eat them all until this question is answered.
I know I promised, but……..
I hate math.
Mjeck, give me the proof that a series of NATURAL numbers that extends to infinity one can be removed and an infinite series remains.
Not a link to hours of study, the proof stated simply.
Hell is not defined as the absence of God.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trzetDR5ZSs
…for those who hate math
Mjeck, what I proposed is more like the infinite number of rooms ONLY, then remove one room.
This does not apply.
Maybe you could play the video backwards, to get the exact answer your looking for?
Mjeck,
O.K. I tried that.
I removed the last set of guests defined as “new guests” then I removed the single guest set then I removed the set called “guests”.
What remained was the rooms (a different set).
Now we are at my starting place.
rooms = jelly beans
maybe try n>n-1
Yes a subset of n is smaller than n.
There are different sizes of infinity; it’s a hard thing to get your head around
Yes, and an infinity of NATURAL numbers is in one way the smallest. But you have to use real numbers to get there.
When we copy several members to a subset, the original remains the infinite one.
I am talking about DESTROYING a member.
Howard, you’ll just need to roll your sleeves up and learn how it works; or write a program.
Set Theory is about knowing something, without knowing what is contained inside.
It helped me immensely on the question and philosophy of God.
It would probably help Stacy with her logic on “Is there Art on the outside of this room?” thought experiment
Different sizes of infinity? No, I don’t buy that. The first time I heard this theory it was from that nut (sorry) Lawrence Krauss in a talk about infinity and the universe. It was one of the most brow furrowing displays of idiocy I’ve ever seen, and I was just starting to engage in these debates and was sincerely trying to understand.
He explained about the hotel, but all that theory says is that infinity is – hold your breath! – infinite. Of course you can stuff an infinite amount of infinities into an infinite series. You can stuff an infinite amount of series stuffed with infinite amounts of series into more infinite series. That’s the point of infinity. You can always add more.
His talk made no sense. When he used this hand-waving magic potion called cosmology to conclude that the shape of the infinite universe is flat, I had to rewind to see if I heard him right. Really? This is what passes for logic? How does an infinite universe have a shape? Nonsense.
I think this is the lecture, and yes, I suffered through the whole thing. You know what else he says, “Jesus didn’t die for us, the stars did.” (Or something like that, going from memory) Very civil, very respectful, very mature, very scientific. Bravo.
Forgive me if I don’t trust anything that comes out of that man’s mouth. It’s justified.
“No, I don’t buy that.”
I’ve shown evidence for its existence.
But I reject illogical proofs.
Sorry to be snarky, I really don’t like that guy. I finally figured out where I’d heard that hotel theory. It was him.
You don’t like David Hilbert?
Wow… I’ve never heard that before. That’s like saying you don’t like Einstein.
This stuff is hard to grasp, even if you want to accept it or not. It took me years to really understand and apply.
They are not illogical… You did say you like to go deep
Matthew 7:20
Matthew 7:20, today i learned that Howard is a programmer who hates math.
LOL
Mjeck, I don’t like Krauss (the one I uncharitably called a nut).
Endless loop beginning again?
John,
The good Lord knows I needed relentless debaters in my path before and after my heart said yes to Him. My poor husband, day after day after day, what patience he had! Oh if you could hear now the things I flung out to obscure the path to acceptance.
Sometimes he just stared at me and blinked, but most of the time he countered and repeated, seemingly endlessly. I needed to ask questions and challenge conclusions. I needed it. Maybe I could have been more humble, but at the time I didn’t see that. I needed to know that this cliff (for that’s what it seemed like then) I was jumping off of could be defended by someone I trusted. His unwavering willingness to engage helped me to have courage.
In a sisterly way, I care about these folks arguing here, whether they decide to take that leap of faith or not — though I’m hoping and praying they someday do, as I’m sure the other commenters/readers are praying too.
Mjeck,
No. The existence of Hell doesn’t negate the existence of God. It just means there is a “state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God.” (CCC 1033)
God predestines no one to go to Hell, it is a willful turning away from God, a persistence in it until the end.
But yes, if you are accusing me of having difficulty accepting illogical conclusions, hey, I won’t deny that.
…And yet, I accept your illogical conclusions
Mjeck, if you find them illogical, please don’t accept them.
Stacy,
Your husband was and is a good man. You may have been hard to deal with, but I don’t think he ever sensed you were not willing to be educated. What you have accomplished after your release is doubtless one of the great rewards God has given him. I simply recall the cautionary remark of Jesus: “Do not give what is holy to dogs, or throw your pearls before swine, lest they trample them underfoot, and turn and tear you to pieces.”
Moreover, it is important now as this thread winds down to learn from the flow of the conversation. What have you learned in the process that you didn’t already know? I have a few pearls from the mud bath to share if you want to hear them.
John,
I always want to hear about the pearls. Do share, please!
He apparently wrote some kind of star trek book, so he probably has said some outlandish stuff
I don’t know if this fits well with the topic. Just as some non-believers want to avoid logic and established language, it seems the insanity has progressed to an alarming stage.
Reading the “Washingtimes” article linked I was STUNNED to read this.
“..protest the French president’s plan to legalize gay marriage and thus allow same-sex couples to adopt and conceive children.”
CONCEIVE CHILDREN!
“They’re talking about putting into national identity cards Parent 1, Parent 2, Parent 3, Parent 4.”
So, now we must change “conceive” to mean “legally own or have”.
I’m going to the DMV today to for a renewal of my conception of the right to drive. First I think I will conceive some lunch.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/13/thousands-rally-against-gay-marriage-france/
I think it’s totally on topic;
9yo logic says gays are bad
University logic says gays are beneficial.
Mjeck,
A 9 year old (or an adult) who says that has not understood the logic or the issue correctly.
A university itself is not capable of logic, it is not a thinking being. All of the ones I have seen are composed of brick, concrete, grass, metal, paint, etc.
Wow, you’re right Howard! I can’t believe I thought bricks had logic
Mjeck,
To paraphrase a great American.
“Stupid is, as stupid says.”
Got to go an conceive something at a governmental office.
Don’t try and talk to the building while you’re there…. I won’t make that mistake twice!
Mjeck, you wrote: “University logic says gays are beneficial.”
How are they beneficial?? Just wondering.
“It is much easier to become a father than to be one.” – Kent Nerburn (1946-) ““..protest the French president’s plan to legalize gay marriage and thus allow same-sex couples to adopt and conceive children.” The quote I used is in relation to a man remaining chaste, refraining from sexual relations with a woman before marriage. Outside of modern medician or the use of surrogate mother (for men) or sperm doner for women – still cannot find any way two of the same sex can conceive a child.
Off the top of my head;
Women’s fashion;
I shutter at the thought of straight men designing women’s clothing
2nd;
It has been argued that when an hunter-gatherer society has too many men/hunters, it is beneficial that a man would willingly stay with the camp.
I think this was related to their findings that when women give birth to many of boys, the youngest has a higher rate of homosexuality.
Alan Turing was gay. Alan Turing was instrumental in defeating the Nazis. Ergo, at least one gay was beneficial to society.
Baron von Steuben was gay. Baron von Steuben taught Washington how to train the Revolutionary Army. That’s two gays — ergo, gays are good for society.
Of course, I’m assuming you’re not trying to make some blanket generalization about ALL gays being good or bad. That would be ridiculous and offensive, the height of prejudice. Gays are human beings, and some are good and some are not.
“I shutter at the thought of straight men designing women’s clothing.” so are you sayng that gay men should design womens clothing – would that flow over to whether or not ‘straight women’ should design men’s clothing??
“It has been argued that when an hunter-gatherer society has too many men/hunters, it is beneficial that a man would willingly stay with the camp.” True but also the old, lame and young also stayed behind at the camp. The one who ‘willingly stayed behind’ was usually/normally to be a protector – at least it was among the Navajo whom I have studied some as did a paper on them some years back. I’m not saying it wasn’t practice but could not find research that said it was a part of their society and way of life
“I think this was related to their findings that when women give birth to many of boys, the youngest has a higher rate of homosexuality.” So with China’s one child policy and countries doing sex selection abortions, like India and China – kill the girl but give birth to the boy – as boys are more beneficial to the family than girls, and there is right now a ratio of some 150 to 1 men to women in China, we’re going to see a higher increase of homosexuality among males? So going back to your statement above, just because there were more boys/men in hunter/gatherer socities there was a higher likelyhood of homosexuality.
“How are they beneficial?? Just wondering.”
You wondered, I answered;
My first answer was whimsical, my second was an anecdotal and off the top of my head.
I don’t think I can debate or discuss the benefits of homosexuality with you;
I don’t think your logic can accept that it’s possible; even if evidence is shown for it’s existence.
Listen to Richard, he knows what he’s talking about here.
And how did this thread get onto the subject of fashion???
and how did it get sidetracked from the original discussion on ” Unmoved Mover for Unmoved Doubters” or are these all conneced?
Also this statement “more boys/men in hunter/gatherer socities there was a higher likelyhood of homosexuality.” should of ended with either a question mark or a “!” not a period.
Thank you Stacy, will that cost me a box of chocolate?
Haha!!!
Alright folks, this little post and discussion is going to be the subject of a 5-10 interview on The Son Rise Morning Show at EWTN radio next Tuesday morning at 7:05 (while the kids are eating breakfast hopefully). WooHoo!
Any last thoughts? I will post a link before then, and the archive if I can find it afterward.
If any of my comments look stupid change the name to Mjeck before the show.
Congratulations Stacy! Hopefully they’ll let you record it and post it to the site!
Howard, I’m honored! LOL!
Stacy,
Listened at 9:05 pst.
You are getting more comfortable with taking on the radio. Good job. I am going outside now to do something and will be looking at a 360 degree unobstructed view of snow covered mountains. God is good.
Thanks Howard, I was trying very hard not to say “ya know” in every sentence.
Mjeck, I hope I can find the archive! I have no idea where they are located.