Unmoved Mover Paradox
Debate Rounds (4)
The unmoved movers, if they were anywhere, were said to fill the outer void, beyond the sphere of fixed stars:
"It is clear then that there is neither place, nor void, nor time, outside the heaven. Hence whatever is there, is of such a nature as not to occupy any place, nor does time age it; nor is there any change in any of the things which lie beyond the outermost motion; they continue through their entire duration unalterable and unmodified, living the best and most self sufficient of lives" From [the fulfilment of the whole heaven] derive the being and life which other things, some more or less articulately but other feebly, enjoy."
" Aristotle, De Caelo
Anyone wanna argue its turtles all the way down? Or just let me hear what you think is at the source of this predicament.
"I'd take this one, but with the way you phrased it, It's to easy. Matter's natural state is to be in motion, hence light never stopping except through our intervention. But because of gravity's effect on mass, matter is not constantly in motion. An unmoved mover is not required in a universe where motion is the natural state."
I agree with what you say and yes because motion is the natural state of matter, after an initial movement by an unmoved mover futher movements by that mover are not nessessary. Perhaps I should have phrased the queston better. I was not trying to debate if a universe constantly needed an unmoved mover but rather the existence of an unmoved mover to make the initial movement. I had heard of a story of a king who was asked what holds up the earth, to which he responded, "A turtle." When people wanted to know what held up that turtle he told them, "Another turtle." When asked what held up that turtle he yelled, "Its turtles"turtles all the way down." I just wanted to see if anyone would try to debate that a series of infinite movers was plausible.
To respond to alpha3030:
I apologize for not making the question clear.
If you look at Einstein's special relativity, you will know that matter and energy are coupled together, and it is impossible to say whether one appeared before the other. We are in need of a quantum theory of gravity, and if one exists, then gravity force (energy) can be represented by matter particles, as you have explained. It would then make no sense to think that gravity was there before or after matter existed. If gravity existed, matter existed, and if matter existed, then gravity existed. The best current physics theories suggest that three of the four known forces were fused in a single type of particle shortly after the big bang. The fourth one "gravity" probably was fused with them but we don't know for sure because we don't have a sound quantum theory of gravity. Speaking of physics before the big bang is ridiculous because all of our physics (even relativity) is bound within the space-time continuum of our universe. Talking about the concepts of space, time, forces, matter, or mechanics outside this realm counts as philosophy, or at most, "philosophical physics" like string theory, which is why I placed the debate under this category rather than science. The unmoved mover could be considered the big bang, but if was just a mover itself then what could have moved that. Just let me know whatever you think.
To public: All comments welcome.
ace_of_spades forfeited this round.
alpha3031 forfeited this round.
ace_of_spades forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.