The First Proof of God

[ding]

The First Way: Argument from Motion

1. Our senses prove that some things are in motion.
   
   
2. Things move when potential motion becomes actual motion.
   
   
3. Only an actual motion can convert a potential motion into an actual motion.
   
   
4. Nothing can be at once in both actuality and potentiality in the same respect (i.e., if both actual and potential, it is actual in one respect and potential in another).
   
   
5. Therefore nothing can move itself.
   
   
6. Therefore each thing in motion is moved by something else.
   
   
7. The sequence of motion cannot extend ad infinitum.
   
   
8. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.
   

 

[Vastator]

The First Way: Argument from Motion

1. Our senses prove that some things are in motion.
   
   
2. Things move when potential motion becomes actual motion.
   
   
3. Only an actual motion can convert a potential motion into an actual motion.
   
   
4. Nothing can be at once in both actuality and potentiality in the same respect (i.e., if both actual and potential, it is actual in one respect and potential in another).
   
   
5. Therefore nothing can move itself.
   
   
6. Therefore each thing in motion is moved by something else.
   
   
7. The sequence of motion cannot extend ad infinitum.
   
   
8. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

But something had to set this "God" into motion..

 

[IsaacNewton]

The First Way: Argument from Motion

1. Our senses prove that some things are in motion.
   
   
2. Things move when potential motion becomes actual motion.
   
   
3. Only an actual motion can convert a potential motion into an actual motion.
   
   
4. Nothing can be at once in both actuality and potentiality in the same respect (i.e., if both actual and potential, it is actual in one respect and potential in another).
   
   
5. Therefore nothing can move itself.
   
   
6. Therefore each thing in motion is moved by something else.
   
   
7. The sequence of motion cannot extend ad infinitum.
   
   
8. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

The Kirk Cameron Method of Tail Chasing and other meaningless books.

 

[ZZ PUPPS]

The first post of the Greatness That Is Pupps. Here's another...Tarja

 

[ding]

The First Way: Argument from Motion

1. Our senses prove that some things are in motion.
   
   
2. Things move when potential motion becomes actual motion.
   
   
3. Only an actual motion can convert a potential motion into an actual motion.
   
   
4. Nothing can be at once in both actuality and potentiality in the same respect (i.e., if both actual and potential, it is actual in one respect and potential in another).
   
   
5. Therefore nothing can move itself.
   
   
6. Therefore each thing in motion is moved by something else.
   
   
7. The sequence of motion cannot extend ad infinitum.
   
   
8. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

But something had to set this "God" into motion..

No. That was his point in step 7. There has to be a first cause.

 

[ding]

The First Way: Argument from Motion

1. Our senses prove that some things are in motion.
   
   
2. Things move when potential motion becomes actual motion.
   
   
3. Only an actual motion can convert a potential motion into an actual motion.
   
   
4. Nothing can be at once in both actuality and potentiality in the same respect (i.e., if both actual and potential, it is actual in one respect and potential in another).
   
   
5. Therefore nothing can move itself.
   
   
6. Therefore each thing in motion is moved by something else.
   
   
7. The sequence of motion cannot extend ad infinitum.
   
   
8. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

The Kirk Cameron Method of Tail Chasing and other meaningless books.

Feel free to knock, bro.

 

[Tijn Von Ingersleben]

The First Way: Argument from Motion

1. Our senses prove that some things are in motion.
   
   
2. Things move when potential motion becomes actual motion.
   
   
3. Only an actual motion can convert a potential motion into an actual motion.
   
   
4. Nothing can be at once in both actuality and potentiality in the same respect (i.e., if both actual and potential, it is actual in one respect and potential in another).
   
   
5. Therefore nothing can move itself.
   
   
6. Therefore each thing in motion is moved by something else.
   
   
7. The sequence of motion cannot extend ad infinitum.
   
   
8. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

One of the key teaching in Buddhism is Dependent Origination. The key is understanding things as they ARE not as you imagine they should be.

When this is, that is.
This arising, that arises.
When this is not, that is not.
This ceasing, that ceases.
-Buddha

 

[ScienceRocks]

lol,

I have trillions of times as much evidence for evolution

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

What in bloody hell is "potential motion"? Utter nonsense.

 

[ding]

The First Way: Argument from Motion

1. Our senses prove that some things are in motion.
   
   
2. Things move when potential motion becomes actual motion.
   
   
3. Only an actual motion can convert a potential motion into an actual motion.
   
   
4. Nothing can be at once in both actuality and potentiality in the same respect (i.e., if both actual and potential, it is actual in one respect and potential in another).
   
   
5. Therefore nothing can move itself.
   
   
6. Therefore each thing in motion is moved by something else.
   
   
7. The sequence of motion cannot extend ad infinitum.
   
   
8. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

One of the key teaching in Buddhism is Dependent Origination. The key is understanding things as they ARE not as you imagine they should be.

When this is, that is.
This arising, that arises.
When this is not, that is not.
This ceasing, that ceases.
-Buddha

Look, it cannot be seen - it is beyond form.
Listen, it cannot be heard - it is beyond sound.
Grasp, it cannot be held - it is intangible.
These three are indefinable, they are one.

From above it is not bright;
From below it is not dark:
Unbroken thread beyond description.
It returns to nothingness.
Form of the formless,
Image of the imageless,
It is called indefinable and beyond imagination.

Stand before it - there is no beginning.
Follow it and there is no end.
Stay with the Tao, Move with the present.

Knowing the ancient beginning is the essence of Tao.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Short of God showing himself to the world, there is no such proof he exists. You having faith in a being that you've been raised since birth to believe in is not proof.

 

[ding]

Short of God showing himself to the world, there is no such proof he exists. You having faith in a being that you've been raised since to birth to believe in is not proof.

"God exists", of itself is self-evident, for the predicate is the same as the subject.... Now because we do not know the essence of God, the proposition is not self-evident to us; but needs to be demonstrated by things that are more known to us, though less known in their nature—namely, by effects." Thomas Aquinas

 

[Tijn Von Ingersleben]

Short of God showing himself to the world, there is no such proof he exists. You having faith in a being that you've been raised since to birth to believe in is not proof.

That is a key which any theist must understand. FAITH is belief. Belief in something that for many is unbelievable. There is a strength in that. Yet the faith driven exist in a world of proof so they feel compelled to prove their faith without realizing the incongruity of their action.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Short of God showing himself to the world, there is no such proof he exists. You having faith in a being that you've been raised since to birth to believe in is not proof.

"God exists", of itself is self-evident, for the predicate is the same as the subject.... Now because we do not know the essence of God, the proposition is not self-evident to us; but needs to be demonstrated by things that are more known to us, though less known in their nature—namely, by effects." Thomas Aquinas

I'll repeat it since you didn't get it the first time. You having faith in a being that you've been raised since birth to believe in is not proof.

 

[ding]

Short of God showing himself to the world, there is no such proof he exists. You having faith in a being that you've been raised since to birth to believe in is not proof.

"God exists", of itself is self-evident, for the predicate is the same as the subject.... Now because we do not know the essence of God, the proposition is not self-evident to us; but needs to be demonstrated by things that are more known to us, though less known in their nature—namely, by effects." Thomas Aquinas

I'll repeat it since you didn't get it the first time. You having faith in a being that you've been raised since birth to believe in is not proof.

I got that the first time. Thanks for repeating it though.

I wasn't offering up my faith as proof God exists.

I am guessing the meaning of my last post went over your head.

And considering I left my faith after high school, you probably shouldn't quit your day job to become a prognosticator.

 

[Vastator]

Short of God showing himself to the world, there is no such proof he exists. You having faith in a being that you've been raised since to birth to believe in is not proof.

"God exists", of itself is self-evident, for the predicate is the same as the subject.... Now because we do not know the essence of God, the proposition is not self-evident to us; but needs to be demonstrated by things that are more known to us, though less known in their nature—namely, by effects." Thomas Aquinas

I’ve seen no evidence that what many refer to as “God” being a sentient entity. If merely the first cause is the only argument... how does that differ from the kinds of religions that worship other natural phenomena?

 

[Rambunctious]

lol,

I have trillions of times as much evidence for evolution

Except the beginning...throws ya every time I bet...

 

[Votto]

The First Way: Argument from Motion

1. Our senses prove that some things are in motion.
   
   
2. Things move when potential motion becomes actual motion.
   
   
3. Only an actual motion can convert a potential motion into an actual motion.
   
   
4. Nothing can be at once in both actuality and potentiality in the same respect (i.e., if both actual and potential, it is actual in one respect and potential in another).
   
   
5. Therefore nothing can move itself.
   
   
6. Therefore each thing in motion is moved by something else.
   
   
7. The sequence of motion cannot extend ad infinitum.
   
   
8. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

But something had to set this "God" into motion..

No, God is not material and not having come from the material universe is not subject to time either.

Once God created the material universe time began.

 

[ding]

Short of God showing himself to the world, there is no such proof he exists. You having faith in a being that you've been raised since to birth to believe in is not proof.

"God exists", of itself is self-evident, for the predicate is the same as the subject.... Now because we do not know the essence of God, the proposition is not self-evident to us; but needs to be demonstrated by things that are more known to us, though less known in their nature—namely, by effects." Thomas Aquinas

I’ve seen no evidence that what many refer to as “God” being a sentient entity. If merely the first cause is the only argument... how does that differ from the kinds of religions that worship other natural phenomena?

Like what? Throwing virgins in a volcano eruption? Or making sacrifices during eclipses?

 

[ding]

The First Way: Argument from Motion

1. Our senses prove that some things are in motion.
   
   
2. Things move when potential motion becomes actual motion.
   
   
3. Only an actual motion can convert a potential motion into an actual motion.
   
   
4. Nothing can be at once in both actuality and potentiality in the same respect (i.e., if both actual and potential, it is actual in one respect and potential in another).
   
   
5. Therefore nothing can move itself.
   
   
6. Therefore each thing in motion is moved by something else.
   
   
7. The sequence of motion cannot extend ad infinitum.
   
   
8. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

But something had to set this "God" into motion..

No, God is not material and not having come from the material universe is not subject to time either.

Once God created the material universe time began.

Aquinas and Lao Tzu believed God is existence. I do too.

Not in a pantheist kind of way though. He's not in everything. He just is.