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.

Aquinas' words aren't "first cause" it's first mover.

^

That's a very important distinction.

Instead of reading a simplification of his argument read his actual words.

Which I posted above

@Deleted User Why? Motion is both abstraction and not. Case is also abstraction and not. In the first mover example case only an abstraction. You never seen the mover. It is abstract. You can perceive motion.

We can register motion

You can measure motion and make practical equations. Motion is a kind of cause and effect.

Those same equations work for cosmology.

@Deleted User case and effect is just abstraction in your head. Reality is not broken in case and result

Reality is just a motion

I think materialism is correct about that, reality is just matter and motion.

If reality is just matter and motion then how could something exist beyond that?

There is no real difference between case and effect in reality

I apologize, I don't understand materialism too well myself.

Everything is case and everything is effect