Let's Get Metaphysical Baby

[randerizer]

Not glossing over, just acknowledging that it's only a possibility as no one was there to observe it. And, as I've said before, the forces you've pointed out have never been observed in the absence of all other motion.

But they have been observed when two objects are placed in fixed positions relative to each other. That is physically equivalent to not being in motion at all.

[johnnylightnin]

But they have been observed when two objects are placed in fixed positions relative to each other. That is physically equivalent to not being in motion at all.

Having never observed total rest, that's not a statement that you can make.

[randerizer]

Having never observed total rest, that's not a statement that you can make.

You're right, I have never been able to observe total rest, because it is an unattainable position. However, this problem has been approached by forcing molecules to move slower (approaching absolute zero). And everything suggests that things such as gravitational fields even exist in these extremely molecularly trapped conditions.

But I don't need scientific proof to answer Aquinas' logic. The potential for two fixed objects to initiate action on each other is an omission in Aquinas' proof that eliminates the need for a prime mover.

Remember - Aquinas arrives at the prime mover because he sees no other logical explanation. The mere existance of another possible explanation renders his judgement worthless.

[FishingBack]

Why do you find it more acceptable to not question where a god would come from than to not question where existence itself came from?

I never said it was more acceptable to do anything, I was just debating the fact that you can logic for/against God.

[Spinoza]

You're right, I have never been able to observe total rest, because it is an unattainable position. However, this problem has been approached by forcing molecules to move slower (approaching absolute zero). And everything suggests that things such as gravitational fields even exist in these extremely molecularly trapped conditions.

But I don't need scientific proof to answer Aquinas' logic. The potential for two fixed objects to initiate action on each other is an omission in Aquinas' proof that eliminates the need for a prime mover.

Remember - Aquinas arrives at the prime mover because he sees no other logical explanation. The mere existance of another possible explanation renders his judgement worthless.

Welcome back Randy......

Where the hell have you and Gus been?
I mean seriously...... Why the collective "dawg" keyboard hiatus?

I was beginning to wonder if you and Gus had found a more interesting site to swap thoughts.

BTW...... If you fellows do ever decide to jump ship, I would sincerely like to know your forwarding address. I still have no idea how to "private message", but I did get your last one and assume I am still able to receive.