Does The Unmoved Mover Have A Moustache? Originally from an exchange on slashdot.org about the multiple-universes theory. I hope anomaly doesn't mind my reprinting his comment, and I'm sure Peter Smith doesn't mind -- he's a historian and sometimes Western Theologian whose opinion I highly respect. [------] The universe exists because God created it (Score:5) by anomaly (NOSPAMTom_Cooper@bigfoot.com) on Friday October 20, @11:39AM EST Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Before you get your flamethrowers in a bunch trying to hose me for being an idiot, I suggest you consider the evidence of specific creation based on the concept of intelligent design. If you're walking on the beach and you discover a watch in the sand, you won't assume that randome processes and time caused this watch to appear. "When you see hoofprints, think horses, not zebras" The impetus behind most so-called science rejecting specific creation is simply the philosophy of metaphysical naturalism. Naturalism is a religious belief, not a scientific one. God exists. He created everything. The fact that you are alive and reading this is an example of His grace. This is not "offtopic" or a "troll" The article asked a philosophical question, and it deserves a philosophical answer. Regards, Tom Cooper [---------] Why have a Divine Watchmaker instead of a Sundial? (Score:) by Mozai http://mozai.com/ Look, this 'watch' analogy (and Aqunas's 'Unmoved Mover') bugged the hell out of me when I was taking classes at a Jesuit college, and I'm going to say something about it. You find a bottle of beer (or a watch, for the traditionalists) in the sand on a beach. It's reasonable to assume that a brewer exists somewhere. No problem, I'm with you so far. You notice that every object moves because a force is acted upon it, every object (particle or wave, for you quantum physics nitpickers) exerts force or otherwise moves. It's reasonable that there was an inert object (or, classically, the Unmoved Mover) that started the system from the outside. Not only does this make sense, but it's sympatico with the Laws of Thermodynamics which not even the most exotic clergy will dare wrestle with. At what point does someone assume the nature of the brewer, or the nature of the Unmoved Mover? To say that the creator of the universe is anthropomorphic, aware of it's environment or even self-aware (or dare I say it, divine,) is as unfounded as assuming our brewer is German, two-legged, mustachioed and voted for Bill Clinton, or that our Unmoved Mover resembles a photon, a small cup of tea, or a carelessly flung tortilla dyed like the Shroud of Turin. Something I never thought about until now is why the Divine Watchmaker or the Unmoved Mover has to be a *single* entity anyways. Was there an Unmoved Mover? Yes, of course, it's true a priori. Was there a Divine Watchmaker? See above about umoved movers. What is the nature of the Divine Watchmaker or Unmoved Mover? Is the Divine Watchmaker still alive, or the Unmoved Mover still moving? If you'll forgive the phrase, Ghod only knows. The Unmoved Mover and Divine Watchmaker analogies are as easily satisfied by the solid-state cosmos, burping multiverses or spirtual cows licking an iceberg as it is by a bearded benevolent father-figure with a penchant for biology and engineering (yes yes, I'm picking on Christians. Sorry, did I mention the Jesuit college? Substitute your own anthropomorphism). Oh, and for the zebra comment, if you're surrounded by a herd of zebras, must you think of horses first and zebras second? Caveat: My statements aren't an argument against the existence of God, just a rebuttal of two of the 'proofs'. [-----] Peter Smith's response. "but it's sympatico with the Laws of Thermodynamics which not even the most exotic clergy will dare wrestle with. " Interestingly, Evolutionists and other Uniformitarians seem to think that they can ignore these. Most clergy seem to feel that thermodynamics support creation, because they imply that at some point there was a state of zero entropy. That means that either time started at that point, which indicates a moment of creation if not an author, or that prior to that existed a time period where entropy was decreasing, suggesting that a "creation period" existed prior to the universe we understand (could it have lasted seven days?). However, if you believe that the big bang can happen spontaneously, or that the oscillating universe theory works, then this is true for those as well. However, evolution directly defies the second law of thermodynamics, by insisting that in some cases entropy naturally decreases, such as in the development of life. "Was there an Unmoved Mover? Yes, of course, it's true a priori." Well, not necessarily; a universe with an infinite history will by definition never have a "first cause". There will always be something prior to that. The osclillating model is an infinite universe in duration, so it does not require a "first cause". However, some argue that this does not explain why a universe exists in the first place, even if it always existed. Second, this notion also requires that causality always existed. This may not necessarily be so. There's no way of telling, exactly, but the laws of the universe may have actually been "enacted" at some point (though not necessarily by a conscious force); the big bang theory requires this, because at the time of the big bang, the total mass of the universe is well within it's own schwarzchild radius, and therefore would never escape the black hole it was already in. Thus, either the force of Gravity cannot have existed at the time of the big bang, or the speed of light did not exist as a limiting factor on speed yet. Either way, those laws had to be "turned on" some time after the big bang occurred. "Caveat: My statements aren't an argument against the existence of God, just a rebuttal of two of the 'proofs'. " Interestingly, Thomas Aquinas never really expected his 'proofs' to be taken seriously by non-believers. Like Anselm's ontological proof, they require the believer to first be a believer, and see the world through that viewpoint (though Anselm thought his 'proof' was rock solid, and insisted that anyone who did not acknowledge that his proof was indeed proof did not understand it yet). Aquinas believed that the existence of God was an article of faith and could not be proven; in fact, I think he was the first guy to phrase it that way. His position was that a Theologian's job was not to prove that God existed, but rather ti disprove any arguments that stated that God did not exist. After all, no one was ever converted through rational arguments; it is always an Emotional appeal that reaches a person's desire to be near to God. The best a theologian can hope to do is to put the unbeliever in a position where he acknowledges that there can be a God. I once approached my prof and suggested that this implied that a Theologian must also defend the notion that the existence of God was an article of faith, and therefore must attempt to disprove any arguments that 'proved' the existence of God. He was amused. My point is that a believer can still in good conscience try to disprove such an argument. Peet [------] Postscriptum: It's been pointed out to me since that the Earth, where recognizable life has developed, is not a closed system -- entropy isn't actually running backwards because the planet is constantly getting additional energy from that rather bright hot thing that orbits the Earth once a day (or vice versa). Local decreases in entropy are more than compensated by the increase of entropy in our solar system; the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is still intact. -- Moses.