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.

Also, Aquinas' definiton of God is the first mover.

Than why there has to be the first mover if something is moving by itself?

"Regarding the unity of the divine essence, we must first believe that God exists. This is a truth clearly known by reason. We observe that all things that move are moved by other things, the lower by the higher. The elements are moved by heavenly bodies; and among the elements themselves, the stronger moves the weaker; and even among the heavenly bodies, the lower are set in motion by the higher. This process cannot be traced back into infinity. For everything that is moved by another is a sort of instrument of the first mover. Therefore, if a first mover is lacking, all things that move will be instruments. But if the series of movers and things moved is infinite, there can be no first mover. In such a case, these infinitely many movers and things moved will all be instruments. But even the unlearned perceive how ridiculous it is to suppose that instruments are moved, unless they are set in motion by some principal agent. This would be like fancying that, when a chest or a bed is being built, the saw or the hatchet performs its functions without the carpenter. Accordingly there must be a first mover that is above all the the rest; and this being we call God."

This is the first mover argument.

Why the universe can't move by itself and the first mover can?

ah this is the cosmological argument right?

Motion requires a cause.

@Deleted User Cause is just an abstraction

join if you want 😮 https://discord.gg/b6w6vUp

@Blebleh Yes.

A version of it. The best one in my opinion. The Kalam argument isn't as good in my opinion.

Sorry to link this http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_first_cause

@Firefly Motion is just an abstraction, then.