I do not cite references to classical proofs of the existence of God because I want to avoid all exegetical issues. If there is any merit in my series of arguments for the existence of God, that has been borrowed from some classical philosopher \u2013 most likely Aquinas. I am to blame for all that is folly. <\/p>\n
In this argument, motion is to be understood as spatial movement. <\/p>\n
Motion need not be. (This is a generalization based on reflection about any representable motion.)
\nWhat need not be is dependent for its existence.
\nSo, motion is dependent for its existence.
\nThat upon which motion depends for its existence is something which sets in motion or it is something which does not set in motion.
\nIf it is something which does not set in motion, there would be no motion.
\nBut there is motion.
\nSo, that upon which motion depends for its existence sets in motion.
\nIf that upon which motion depends for its existence sets in motion, then that upon which motion depends for its existence is a mover.
\nSo, that upon which motion depends for its existence is a mover.
\nThe mover upon which motion depends for its existence is in motion or it is not in motion.
\nIf the mover upon which motion depends for its existence is in motion, then the mover upon which motion depends is not a mover upon which all motion depends. (Self-dependent is a figure of speech for denying dependence.)
\nSo, the mover upon which motion depends for its existence is an unmoved mover.<\/p>\n
The unmoved mover upon which motion depends for its existence is transcendent or immanent.
\nIf the unmoved mover upon which motion depends for its existence is immanent it is representable.
\nAn unmoved mover upon which all motion depends is not representable.<\/p>\n
We cannot represent all motion as an entire whole outside of which there is its unmoved mover for this is thinking of something which transcends what we can represent about motion. We can say the words \u201cunmoved mover upon which the entirety of motion depends. But we represent nothing with these words about what transcends our powers of representation. It is an exercise for readers to verify the claim that the entirety of motion cannot be represented. You have to imagine yourself outside space and time. But that imagination feat is impossible. <\/p>\n
So, the unmoved mover upon which all motion depends for its existence is transcendent.<\/p>\n
It is not implausible to add that this transcendent unmoved mover upon which all representable motion depends is that which is entirely independent but on which all which is representable depends. And thereby is God.<\/p>\n
We have started to link the totally transcendent with the immanent. We have found that a very fundamental feature of the immanent, viz., motion, has its transcendent which is readily identified with the transcendent.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
I do not cite references to classical proofs of the existence of God because I want to avoid all exegetical issues. If there is any merit in my series of arguments for the existence of God, that has been borrowed from some classical philosopher \u2013 most likely Aquinas. I am to blame for all that … Continue reading <\/p>\n <\/span> Transcendence of the Unmoved Mover<\/h4>\n