Nothing you have said thus far supports this claim.
But we live in a world where murder is wrong, so there must be a moral standard. Now if that moral standard isn't just human opinion it must have been created by something other than humans, ie by God.
It's based on survival instinct.
Survival bias is part of the instinct.
Feser’s / Aquinas’ arguments for an “unmoved mover.” (Last Superstition, pp. 95-99)1. Feser deduces the existence of a First Mover (FM), becausea. Some things move.b. Something must move them.c. There cannot be an infinite regress of movers.d. Therefore, there is a FM, whose existence does not need to be actualized by anything else.
2. A First Mover must be itself unmoved, unchanging, and unmovable.a. If it was moving or changing, i.e., going from potential to actual, something outside it would have to be moving it. Then it would not be the first mover.b. It must also be unmovable to avoid an infinite regress of movers. So the FM must be fully actualized, with no potential. Having no potentiality, it could not possibly move or change.
3. There can be only one FM.a. If there were more than one being of pure actuality, there would have to be some way to distinguish between them; one would have to have some feature the other one lacked.b. To lack a feature is to have an unrealized potentiality.c. A purely actual being has no unrealized potentialities, by definition.
4. An FM must be immaterial.“To be a material thing entails being changeable in various ways.”
5. An FM must be eternal.Beginning or ceasing to exist would be an instance of change. It is outside time and space.
6. As “the common first member of all the various essentially ordered causal series that result in these instances of change, the Unmoved Mover is outside and distinct from them all, as that which sustains the entire world in motion from instant to instant.”
7. An FM must be omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, and have personality.
“But the Unmoved Mover, as the source of all change, is the source of things coming to have the attributes they have. Hence He has these attributes eminently if not formally.
That includes every power, so that He is all-powerful. It also includes the intellect and will that human beings possess . . . so that He must be said to have intellect and will, and thus personality, in an analogical sense. It must have them in the highest degree, lacking any limitations inherent in a material being.
“Hence He not only has knowledge, but knowledge without limit, being all-knowing.” It has no negative features or defects. Those would be privations, absence of a positive attributes and the FM has all attributes fully actualized. All-good in an analogical sense.”
Spinoza covers this better.
Let me know if you need more specifics.Bravo! You have given me lots of things to study. Thank you.
it's not immediately apparent how that refutes Feser's argument!Fundamentally Feser/Aquinas is based on Aristotelian physics and so their arguments' defects are the defects of Aristolelian physics, in particular that a force is required for sustained motion, which we now know to be false.Once 1b ('Something must move them')is falsified the rest of the argument is rendered irrelevant.
Fundamentally Feser/Aquinas is based on Aristotelian physics and so their arguments' defects are the defects of Aristolelian physics, in particular that a force is required for sustained motion, which we now know to be false.Once 1b ('Something must move them')is falsified the rest of the argument is rendered irrelevant.
I think I'm right... but it's almost a pity because Feser builds such a lot on top of 1b its deflating that its all a waste of time. i suggest that next time you are ever in argument with a 'feserite' you don't let them get past any even slightly dubious premise!Once 1b ('Something must move them')is falsified the rest of the argument is rendered irrelevant.
C.S. Lewis did it better. [LINK] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9fR1vSxNEQ
Parmenides explains this better. Congratulations, you have now disproved the concept of FREEWILL. [LINK] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qNjmPyHIoOc
WTF mate. Please expose your axioms. [LINK] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZMwKPmsbWE
Humans are defined by their limitations. If a god has no human limitations, then it is not "like a human" and cannot be said to have specifically human characteristics (like intellect and will and personality and gender). [LINK] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-gHgcmFB6Q
Unactualized actualizer. [LINK] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJDYPZYMt0Q
Or ultimate observer. [LINK] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4C5pq7W5yRM
C.S. Lewis did it better. [LINK]I don’t think so. Sounds like bs to me.
Parmenides explains this better. Congratulations, you have now disproved the concept of FREEWILL. [LINK]This speaker talks too fast for me.
WTF mate. Please expose your axioms. [LINK]This links to “The End of the World.” I don’t see the relevance.
Humans are defined by their limitations. If a god has no human limitations, then it is not "like a human" and cannot be said to have specifically human characteristics (like intellect and will and personality and gender). [LINK]This links to a Rick & Morty Cartoon, “We need a hang glider.” I don’t see the relevance.
Unactualized actualizer. [LINK]This link to Rationality Rules is relevant but includes unnecessary stuff that makes it tedious to listen to. I'm working on it.
Or ultimate observer. [LINK]This one, Quantum Physics Debunks Materialism, is interesting. I’m still studying it.
Please explain why "An FM must be omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, and have personality".Why would anyone take this statement at face-value? WTF mate.
“But the Unmoved Mover, as the source of all change, is the source of things coming to have the attributes they have.
Hence He has these attributes eminently if not formally.
That includes every power, so that He is all-powerful.
It also includes the intellect and will that human beings possess . . .
so that He must be said to have intellect and will, and thus personality, in an analogical sense.
It must have them in the highest degree, lacking any limitations inherent in a material being.
“Hence He not only has knowledge, but knowledge without limit, being all-knowing.”
It has no negative features or defects.
Those would be privations, absence of a positive attributes and the FM has all attributes fully actualized. All-good in an analogical sense.”
A better description would be "eternal substance". Something that is eternal and unchanging cannot "move". It might only "apparently move" from a subjective viewpoint, like that of a human, but to an objective observer, who necessarily views all things and all times with equal clarity, "movement" is "impossible". Thank you Parmenides.
