That's not answering my question.

What does it mean to you?

Atheist, huh? Please refute Aquinas' First Mover argument, so I can sleep at night.

It means that I lack belief in religion

@Blebleh give it a shot.

Shoot down the first mover.

http://dhspriory.org/thomas/Compendium.htm#3

Who moved the first mover?

Many Christians I think do not follow their religion effectively

This is true.

and those people are not Christians.

that can be said about every religion though

Nothing, the first mover is immovable. See following paragraph.

well

That is the same ineffectiveness as not worshipping Tengri at all

maybe almost all of them

Why can't it emerge from something that has been eternal?

Or, why has it to be a god with certain characteristics instead of nature?

Time, in the universe, had a beginning. What type of thing can make time? Physicists say that there was 'quantum potential' in the beginning, which gave rose to time.

I don't know advanced physics, do you think god could be outside time and space?

It has to.

If God is the first mover he has to be.

God, in this context, is immovable, or not subject to time and space, otherwise he would need further explanation. In the beginning, somewhere, there has to be a first mover, to make the first motion possible in the universe.

Chapter 4 goes over the immobility of God

The theory about quantum potential does not explain why the energy before the beginning did nothing for eternity and then was magically moved into action.

It is not mathematically sound to suggest that something is infinitely stable, and then it becomes unstable.

> there has to be a first mover, to make the first motion possible in the universe.

"has to be"

The best argument there.

It has to be.

Some things are just so.

You're not following. When I say 'has to be' I mean it is necessary, without it, the theory is insufficient.

It is not circular reasoning.

it doesn't have to be a god, it could be a natural reaction from a previous infinite

Theory is insufficient with or without it. Who moves the first mover?

If something has to move the first mover then it cannot be the first mover.

@Mros Than nobody moves him?

Yes

The question is, what kind of thing could begin motion from a state of rest? That thing has to be immovable, somewhere down the line there is a first.