I'm reading it right now https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/feuerbach/works/essence/

I never read Aquinas and probably will never do.

I'm not sure what is a problem.

My understanding is if there is a first mover - he is the one to move first by itself. In this situation universe is criticized as being unable to make the first move and in the same time first mover is able. For me it is just an imaginary situation. The universe is eternally moving as far as we know.

If the first mover can move by himself than the universe also can.

The need of the first mover is not obvious to me.

The first mover is necessary, it is called 'contingent being'. You can read about it here if you want to. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/

Anyway, I'm just flapping about being a drama queen. For a normal person ambiguity is not a problem. But my personality does not allow it.

>The first mover is necessary, it is called 'contingent being'.

For who?

Not necessary for me.

Yeah, I'm not explaining it.

Not necessary for most philosophers past 1800

That's because they haven't examined the arguments.

No, they disagree with arguments.

Not that I have seen.

You just disregard the arguments.

That's an insult.

You did disregard my argument and it is not even my. Everybody agrees on this.

Agrees on what?

If you have something able to move by itself - like the universe, than there is no need for the first mover. But you deny universe the ability to move by itself. You think it is about causality. And the cause is just an abstraction.

The reality is different from abstractions of 1300 priest.

Whatever reality is

Is anything pushes atoms to move or they move by itself?

Do they have some kind of charge?

From the first mover?

Where is it registered?

By who?

Necessity is defined as 'unable to cease to exist'. A necessary beingness must exist, either its the universe itself or God. For the universe (matter/energy), the Principle of Conservation of Mass-Energy says matter and energy are never lost but rather transmute into each other. The problem is that we do not know if this law is eternally true. If it ever changed, or had emerged the way it is sometime in the past, it would mean that the universe could cease to exist. Also if matter and energy are also necessary then no changes could take place because it would destroy the relations within the universe, which are supposed to be necessary (unmovable). Further if the universe infinitely regresses, there is no ultimate explanation of necessary being, and it is impossible to prove. The universe existing 'for itself' is not a defensible position.

@Deleted User I'm losing you now.

I am trying to condense a lot in small format.

Do atoms have a charge from first mover or they move by themselves?

It would be much easier if you read Aquinas.

@Deleted User I've read Christian philosophers 15 years ago. Was not impressed at all.

Sure.

I switched to Buddhist

They been more rational.

The idea that matter 'moves by itself' has no explanation. It is just a vague statement.

It is an observation.

No, the observation is that matter moves. The cause is not determined by only observation.

The cause is not important. It is abstraction.