Helping organize thought.

reality is not broken by abstractions itself. You need to use your brain to do that. So case is the creation of the brain

Nothing to do with universe

Or its existance

I think this argument of casuality can be used with God too

and so on

In an Absolute sense, reality is just totality, yes. But then it becomes impossible to say anything about it without using abstractions.

@Firefly Do you have a book list

why can't it be something natural?

If something had to move God then the first mover cannot be God.

Is it that difficult to understand?

Tengri is natural

@Deleted User yes, but it is not reality that follow abstractions. It is abstractions that follow reality. And in the case of first mover is opposite.

then god would be the father of who created us?

Such is the nature of all theory.

We can never reach an Absolute understanding of reality.

God is the father of everything. The First mover.

@Mongke Khan#2673 http://www.goodreads.com/list/show/91080.Introduction_to_Marxism_Leninism

Thanks

ok then we could find the origin of our universe and still ask for who created it and so on

until there's nothing

I don't think you understand the argument Aquinas is trying to make.

In what you quoted

Aquinas still assumes that bigger moves the weaker

but look how in space there isn't gravity

and in a different universe or part this could be different too

or a multiverse

Is there any proof to a multiverse?

@Mros as many as with first mover

I'm not so advanced

@Firefly So when you say, it is only based on abstraction; as far as abstractions go, it is still logical. You are correct about saying the abstractions follow reality, not the other way around. It is not an Absolute statement. It is based on the abstraction of motion.

I don't know proofs of it

Is there any logical explanation for the existence of the multiverse or is it just pure speculation?

@Deleted User correct. But most abstractions that people had in history went wrong.

So we really don't have a prove.

But we have a lot of fanatics

Believing in abstractions.

hypotheses, I found a video explaining an alternative but I don't remember it, neither I find the video; I'd have so search it, Still, I don't think I could explain this since I'm not advanced

@Firefly Abstractions become wrong when they are shown to be illogical. This argument is 800 years old and has not been shown to be illogical based on reason or science.

Is there a proof of God?

Aquinas is still making a logical and reasonable explanation.