|
Post by Admin on Jun 21, 2022 3:11:10 GMT
It's not special pleading. The statement can be applied to the universe itself How do you know that? What is the rational justification for applying the statement to the universe itself? Also (to my previous point), that still only gets you to a “cause”, not necessarily a “first cause”. Even if you apply the statement to the universe itself, it still cannot have a “first cause” because according to the principal, whatever caused the universe would also have to have a cause. If you say it doesn’t, then that is special pleading! I’m not convinced that the universe had to have a cause at all, but it’s your argument. Therefore YOU need to resolve that internal inconsistency in order for this to be a sound argument. There is no inconsistency, internal or otherwise. If something was caused, it isn't the "first cause" as described by the statement. Therefore, if the cause of the universe was caused, it wouldn't be the first cause. And to say that the universe wasn't caused is to say the universe itself is what's being described in the statement. That may be true, but I was expounding the quote about the First Cause Argument being "too much for an atheist to digest," and I proposed that as the reason for the semantics. I have said nothing about your position, unless your contention is that there is no first cause, as opposed to simply being unconvinced. Atheism necessitates the non-existence of a god, not the non-existence of a first cause. So, as an atheist, what exactly do you reject? Describe this thing you don't believe exists lack belief in.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jun 21, 2022 7:38:29 GMT
How do you know that? What is the rational justification for applying the statement to the universe itself?…to say that the universe wasn't caused is to say the universe itself is what's being described in the statement. Fair enough. You’re admitting that this first cause of yours might very well be “the universe”, in which case the universe is also a “being” according to your usage. But none of this gets us to a FIRST cause, whether it’s the universe or not. But why though? 🤷🏽♂️ The reason for the “semantics” as you call it was for clarity. You are using nebulous terminology with multiple usages. I made it clear that I asked about your usage in order to avoid the potential for equivocation (as this regularly occurs in such discussions where people of different philosophical and theological views use similar terminology differently). I suspect that will happen anyway, but in the interest of an honest dialogue we should all make every effort to be as clear about what we are trying to communicate as possible. Do you disagree? 🤨 But you did say one MUST reject science by rejecting a first cause argument. At least that’s what it sounded like you were saying (correct me if I’m wrong). If so, I’d like to know the rationale for that position. No, it actually doesn’t. It doesn’t necessitate “the non-existence of a god”, nor does it necessitate “the belief in the non-existence of a god”. It only necessitates a “lack of belief in the existence of a god”. Atheism is a state of belief resulting in a worldview where no god is believed to exist and (usually) where gods are believed to be unnecessary for existence. As an atheist, I don’t believe that a god (as described by classical theology) exists. The existence of a “supernatural creator” that is timeless, spaceless, immaterial, and all of those other things you are asserting. Your conclusion is supposed to result in a “being” that’s a thinking agent with a mind and exercising will over it’s creation. That’s all separate from whether there was a “first cause” or not. When you add all of those other assertions to your first cause assertion, it becomes a god.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jun 21, 2022 10:14:58 GMT
…to say that the universe wasn't caused is to say the universe itself is what's being described in the statement. Fair enough. You’re admitting that this first cause of yours might very well be “the universe”, in which case the universe is also a “being” according to your usage. But none of this gets us to a FIRST cause, whether it’s the universe or not. If X was caused, it wouldn't be uncaused. I can only assume that you have no evidence that the universe has always existed, otherwise you wouldn't be on the fence. And saying "none of this gets us to a FIRST cause" is like saying 2+2 doesn't get us to FOUR. Remember, the statement is the conclusion. I don't disagree. Thanks for avoiding the potential for equivocation. Why can't what I said sound like what I said? lol. Unless I overlooked it, you have yet to reject the argument as you are merely unconvinced, and what I meant was that the argument can't be disputed with science, let alone logic and reason. For example, an assertion that the universe put itself into motion is a violation of the one of the most basic fundamentals of physics, namely the one that says an object at rest stays at rest until acted upon by an external force. So either those rocks that moved themselves are not bound by the laws of physics, or the law itself is incorrect and must be rejected pending revision. Yeah, yeah. And I don't believe a first cause exists; I just lack the belief that it doesn't. This old, worn-out "disbelief vs lack of belief" shield is just a semantic spin designed to unnecessarily dodge the burden of proof. I have asserted none of those things at any point in this discussion. Tell me more about straw men while I explain that conclusions are the results.
|
|
|
Post by Winter_King on Jun 21, 2022 10:26:37 GMT
The argument from fine tuning only makes sense if they don't understand evolution.
Life doesn't need the "perfect" place to exist, life adapts to the environment, not the other way around.
There are life everywhere on earth from the coldest climate to the hottest environment.
To give you an example:
The first extinction event happened about 2.45 billion years ago in the Paleoproterozoic era because too many plants started to release a deadly toxin in environment, which killed of many of the existing anaerobic species. But life adapted and today many living things are dependant on the stuff to live.
What toxin you ask? Oxygen. Yes oxygen is lethal to most animals even today, including humans. That's why we need antioxidants in order to survive.
The fine tuning I am referring to has nothing to do with evolution. It is that the universe was tuned for anything that even resembles the kind of matter and celestial bodies we observe in the night sky.
This site conjectures the outcome if the constants were off by a little bit. The first ones deal with the very structure of the universe itself. The later ones do deal with how the earth seems to be fine tuned for life Those later ones I would write off by assuming like you that a different kind of planet, if planets formed, could have resulted in life...just a lot different than the life we know. But the first few are more serious.
So, it's NOT about whether some life could have evolved on a different kind of planet, it's that nothing by hydrogen would have existed.
If gravity had been much different, either stars would not have lasted long enough for life to form, or they would not have been hot enough to explode into supernovae.
I would happily entertain explanations that either affirmed that without chemical bonds and planets or stars, life would still have arisen naturally out of some other 'material' whatever that would be, or that with different constants atoms, stars and planets would still have formed. But physicists seem to pretty much agree the some of these parameters had to be within very narrow limits for us to even have atoms at all. And what would life form from if there were no atoms?
How can we reconcile the idea that the universe is fine tuned for life with the fact that the vast majority of the known universe is actual extremely hostile to life? Even on Earth, it took at least a billion years so that life could emerge.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jun 21, 2022 15:13:30 GMT
If X was caused, it wouldn't be uncaused. Obviously (that’s a tautology!) You can assume anything you want but your argument shouldn’t be dependent on assumptions about me or my position; it should stand on its own. Whether I have evidence for something or not is irrelevant because I’m not the one making claims about the nature of the universe here - you are! If anyone requires evidence it would be you. If you say that the universe had a cause, you need evidence. If you say that there is a first cause, you also need evidence. No, it’s actually not like saying that at all. This is a category error and a faulty analogy. Mathematical equations are proved by logic. Scientific theories are validated by empirical evidence. Philosophical arguments are supported by rational argumentation based on valid and sound reasoning. All of these realms of knowledge are demonstrated differently. Moreover, the Principle of Sufficient Reason states only that everything must have a cause! It does not address, assert, or prove that anything can or must have a “first cause”. Now, I personally don’t accept this principle because it’s unfalsifiable. I do realize that it’s not in the scientific realm and more of a philosophical argument, but the reasoning is based solely on intuition; it is not a sound conclusion based on valid premises. We don’t know that everything must have a cause, we just THINK that because that’s what it seems like from our perspective. We don’t know everything about the universe, including whether or not it had a cause. To assert that it did because “everything must have a cause” is a begging the question fallacy! But your assertion is even worse because it goes beyond that Principle of Sufficient Reason and therefore requires even more support. Not only do you have to show by reason or evidence that the universe had a cause (which as are as I’m aware nobody can do), but you also have to reason that this cause was the “first cause”, or that there was a “first cause” somewhere in that chain, which again cannot be done. In addition to that, if you are also asserting that this first cause is a sentient being (which I’m not saying YOU have, but if you do), this now turns it into an extraordinary claim that demands extraordinary evidence. The burden of proof cannot be met for such claims, so I contend that it is irrational to believe in them. Conclusions require arguments that are supported by reason. They have to be based on premises that are valid in order to be sound conclusions. I’m aware that you have a conclusion. What I don’t understand is your rationale for having reached it. That’s the part that’s still missing. That’s literally the same thing! Not accepting something (because you’re not convinced) is rejecting it. But I don’t “have to” reject the Principle of Sufficient Reason just because I’m not convinced of the validity of your argument because they are two different arguments. I do reject it, but as I’ve shown, I’m rejecting it for a different reason. I’m also rejecting your argument because I don’t think you’ve supported it. You are correct that the argument cannot be disputed by science because it’s a philosophical argument that science doesn’t address. However the second part of your statement is wrong. It CAN be disputed by logic and reason (this would be the only way in which it could be disputed). The fact that I haven’t done it yet doesn’t make your argument sound. The burden of proof is always on the person making the claim. I don’t need to refute your argument using logic and reason; you have to support it with logic and reason, and you haven’t yet. All you’ve done was present a conclusion, but the conclusion is not supported yet. So I don’t have to do anything at all in order to be rationally justified in rejecting your claim. Long story short: you haven’t made a case yet! Keep in mind that A) I never made such an assertion, and B) we’re no longer talking about the Principle of Sufficient Reason anymore; we’re now talking about the laws of physics - a completely different realm of knowledge. But go ahead…😏 Yeah, the problem here is that this is all begging the question! Embedded in your analysis is an assertion that “rocks” were at one time NOT in motion. You’re assuming that these “rocks” (which I’m assuming is a metaphor for existing material) BEGAN moving at some point. But that’s the thing that you’re trying to prove remember? You cannot use your conclusion as one of your premises - that is circular! You’re basically arguing that the universe had a beginning, and THEREFORE something must have caused this beginning because it could not just cause itself. But you haven’t established that it had a beginning, you’ve just asserted it. And your argument doesn’t reason that it had to have had a beginning either, it just assumes it. Your only basis for this assumption is the Principle of Sufficient reason (which again is not science). You’re using a philosophical argument and trying to claim victory by saying that science can’t disprove it. But that’s as “true” as it is “irrelevant”. I’m not rejecting the laws of physics by rejecting the Principle of Sufficient Reason. I’m saying that one does not necessarily apply to the other. You have to prove that it does FIRST and that’s what’s missing. I don’t believe in the Principle of Sufficient Reason (for reasons already given), and you haven’t made a compelling argument for it! But you are making a bunch of assertions about nature (which are unsupported scientifically), and then using these assumptions to affirm the validity of that philosophical argument. That is not logical! Your assumptions about nature have to be demonstrated to be true FIRST and the way that you demonstrate assumptions about nature is with empirical evidence (science, not philosophy). If your assumptions about nature are NOT true, then the Principle of Sufficient Reason is falsified - which is what your assumptions are based on in the first place. Your entire argument is circular! You can call it whatever you want. But at the end of the day, I’m not the one making claims about the nature of the universe; YOU ARE! I’m not the one who ever took on a burden of proof in the first place; YOU DID! I’m sorry that you cannot meet your burden, but that’s really not my fault. What’s happened here is that theists have become accustomed to SHIFTING the burden of proof (a fallacy) in theological and philosophical arguments. That is a well established methodology in apologetics, but it is now and always has been fallacious. It’s only when they get called out on it that they begin whining about atheists using “old, worn-out shields”. But I don’t need a shield because my position (which is an agnostic atheist) is unassailable! Your position as an agnostic, theist making truth claims about the universe is not! Truth claims require evidence via empiricism or rational argumentation in order to be justified; otherwise they can be attacked. And shifting the burden of proof is fallacious because it doesn’t do anything to validate your claims. If the only way theists can make an argument is by poking holes in the arguments of others, then you probably don’t have a very solid foundation for your own. Theists spend a lot of time appealing to “philosophy”, but the irony is that they like to ignore one of the most basic philosophical principles. The moment the philosophical reality of burden proof hits them, they begin throwing temper tantrums. You cannot “force” a burden of proof onto someone else without straw manning their position. I don’t need a reason to reject your argument other than your failure to meet the burden of proof that you took on. That’s it! If you have an argument, then your job is to convince me that it is based on valid premises leading to a sound conclusion. Claiming that your argument is sound because I don’t have a “better alternative argument” is NOT a demonstration that yours is valid or sound. Please calm down! That was NOT a straw man argument because I was never accusing you of having asserted any of that. I meant a hypothetical “you” as a theist. Now, you didn’t assert that yet, but it IS your position isn’t it? Because that’s the position of classical “theism” (unless you’re trying to claim that you’re not a theist)? All of your argumentation so far is identical to theistic apologetics. So are you denying that you believe in a god as described by classical theism? 🤔 In any case, you DID assert that atheism necessitated a rejection of things which it does not. I was merely explaining to you what atheism means as I use it, and why it doesn’t necessitate the things that you claimed.
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Jun 21, 2022 15:52:10 GMT
The fine tuning I am referring to has nothing to do with evolution. It is that the universe was tuned for anything that even resembles the kind of matter and celestial bodies we observe in the night sky.
This site conjectures the outcome if the constants were off by a little bit. The first ones deal with the very structure of the universe itself. The later ones do deal with how the earth seems to be fine tuned for life Those later ones I would write off by assuming like you that a different kind of planet, if planets formed, could have resulted in life...just a lot different than the life we know. But the first few are more serious.
So, it's NOT about whether some life could have evolved on a different kind of planet, it's that nothing by hydrogen would have existed.
If gravity had been much different, either stars would not have lasted long enough for life to form, or they would not have been hot enough to explode into supernovae.
I would happily entertain explanations that either affirmed that without chemical bonds and planets or stars, life would still have arisen naturally out of some other 'material' whatever that would be, or that with different constants atoms, stars and planets would still have formed. But physicists seem to pretty much agree the some of these parameters had to be within very narrow limits for us to even have atoms at all. And what would life form from if there were no atoms?
How can we reconcile the idea that the universe is fine tuned for life with the fact that the vast majority of the known universe is actual extremely hostile to life? Even on Earth, it took at least a billion years so that life could emerge. And that is why that line of reasoning doesn't impress me more. Indeed, I can't explain the constants they claim make the universe as we see it possible, but it seems no more than in interesting scientific problem rather than some sort of existential quandry. And by giving up and just saying god did it pretty much makes so we can never study it or explain it scientifically. And even odder still is the fact that, IF they are right...there is a whole supernatural world full of living things so a physical/natural world, much less a finely tuned one, isn't needed at all for...life. And odder still is that if God created the world, he could have, with his omnipotence made all the pieces work together perfectly regardless of how they were set up or 'tuned.' So 'fine tuned' only has significance if there is no God.
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Jun 22, 2022 1:15:19 GMT
For example, an assertion that the universe put itself into motion is a violation of the one of the most basic fundamentals of physics, namely the one that says an object at rest stays at rest until acted upon by an external force. So either those rocks that moved themselves are not bound by the laws of physics, or the law itself is incorrect and must be rejected pending revision. We had this conversation once. Physical laws govern our universe, not necessarily whatever was or wasn't before. I believe the current thinking is that physical laws didn't exist in the early moments but evolved after. It is entirely possible the universe popped into existence and began expanding without an outside force acting upon it.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jun 22, 2022 3:32:16 GMT
captainbryce - There's far too much wrong in that novel for a detailed response, but it's not that complex. We live in a causal universe and we witness causes and effects literally all the time. If the chain of events regresses infinitely (ie, turtles all the way down), then it will also progress endlessly. But nothing lives forever (nothing 'natural,' anyway). Entropy is a real thing. So what we have in the case of infinite regress is a cyclical universe, which is to say it dies and restarts over and over, ad infinitum. (Some liken it to a balloon that expands and contracts until the energy is depleted.) Other than that pesky entropy snag, the problem is that it would have to revive itself, which would require an external agent of some sort. There is plenty of evidence to support a starting point and absolutely none to support infinite regression. Proposing such nonsense to dispute the argument is completely unnecessary if the goal is to avoid "god" because as I said, it doesn't prove the existence of a god--it doesn't even attempt to. The statement is simply the logical conclusion based on what we know to be true, and so to dispute it, we must cast unreasonable doubt on even the most fundamental truths about the world in which we live. TL;DR - If it has an end, it had a beginning. ps... lol. If I were any calmer, I'd be dead. The exclamation point was a nice touch, tho.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jun 22, 2022 3:35:59 GMT
Physical laws govern our universe, not necessarily whatever was or wasn't before. I believe the current thinking is that physical laws didn't exist in the early moments but evolved after. It is entirely possible the universe popped into existence and began expanding without an outside force acting upon it. Surely you have some supporting evidence for that proposition other than wild speculations about things of which we have absolutely zero knowledge. I mean, isn't that why atheists are atheists?
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Jun 22, 2022 6:31:45 GMT
Physical laws govern our universe, not necessarily whatever was or wasn't before. I believe the current thinking is that physical laws didn't exist in the early moments but evolved after. It is entirely possible the universe popped into existence and began expanding without an outside force acting upon it. Surely you have some supporting evidence for that proposition other than wild speculations about things of which we have absolutely zero knowledge. I mean, isn't that why atheists are atheists? You just admitted to having zero knowledge about the origin of the universe so why have you been making confident assertions about what physics apply? The physical laws aren't mine. I learned them in school as you did, presumably. Theories on the origin of the universe I learn by reading and listening to physicists. They are not my theories to defend, and I don't understand them well enough to teach. The most important thing I've come to understand is that the universe is not intuitive. Causality is a rule in our universe, not necessarily a rule from Before.
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Jun 22, 2022 6:43:14 GMT
Physical laws govern our universe, not necessarily whatever was or wasn't before. I believe the current thinking is that physical laws didn't exist in the early moments but evolved after. It is entirely possible the universe popped into existence and began expanding without an outside force acting upon it. Surely you have some supporting evidence for that proposition other than wild speculations about things of which we have absolutely zero knowledge. I mean, isn't that why atheists are atheists? Splitting my reply. I don't find atheist to be a useful term and only use it as shorthand for other's benefit. I am an agnostic, an unbeliever. I was taught to believe in Yahweh but the evidence wasn't there and there is ample evidence the Abrahamic religions are mythologies. My only interest is in understanding reality. Science produces works, gods do not.
|
|
|
Post by Feologild Oakes on Jun 22, 2022 6:52:20 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jun 22, 2022 7:57:47 GMT
Surely you have some supporting evidence for that proposition other than wild speculations about things of which we have absolutely zero knowledge. I mean, isn't that why atheists are atheists? You just admitted to having zero knowledge about the origin of the universe so why have you been making confident assertions about what physics apply? The physical laws aren't mine. I learned them in school as you did, presumably. Theories on the origin of the universe I learn by reading and listening to physicists. They are not my theories to defend, and I don't understand them well enough to teach. The most important thing I've come to understand is that the universe is not intuitive. Causality is a rule in our universe, not necessarily a rule from Before. The "things" to which I referred in that statement are things like infinite regression, spontaneous creation, alternate universes, dimensions that house four-sided triangles, the bizarre notion that nothing is something, and in this case, "rules from Before." I don't find atheist to be a useful term and only use it as shorthand for other's benefit. I am an agnostic, an unbeliever. I was taught to believe in Yahweh but the evidence wasn't there and there is ample evidence the Abrahamic religions are mythologies. My only interest is in understanding reality. Science produces works, gods do not. Do you believe a god (of any kind) exists? If not, you're an atheist. It's as simple as that. There is no fence. There's also no old man in the clouds zapping sinners with lightning bolts.
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Jun 22, 2022 12:50:43 GMT
There's also no old man in the clouds zapping sinners with lightning bolts. Minus the cartoon imagery, is there a god who punishes sinners?
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Jun 22, 2022 15:26:43 GMT
Why would we assume and how could we know this 'other' existence is 'in motion' or has the ability to 'create' motion while assuming the natural can't just be 'in motion?' Ad hoc assertions must be made in either case.
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Jun 22, 2022 19:43:49 GMT
You just admitted to having zero knowledge about the origin of the universe so why have you been making confident assertions about what physics apply? The physical laws aren't mine. I learned them in school as you did, presumably. Theories on the origin of the universe I learn by reading and listening to physicists. They are not my theories to defend, and I don't understand them well enough to teach. The most important thing I've come to understand is that the universe is not intuitive. Causality is a rule in our universe, not necessarily a rule from Before. The "things" to which I referred in that statement are things like infinite regression, spontaneous creation, alternate universes, dimensions that house four-sided triangles, the bizarre notion that nothing is something, and in this case, "rules from Before." That is not an answer. You confused me with captainbryce, the "things" remark goes to him. But I know from past experience not to expect a cogent reply to my question.
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Jun 22, 2022 19:55:34 GMT
I don't find atheist to be a useful term and only use it as shorthand for other's benefit. I am an agnostic, an unbeliever. I was taught to believe in Yahweh but the evidence wasn't there and there is ample evidence the Abrahamic religions are mythologies. My only interest is in understanding reality. Science produces works, gods do not. Do you believe a god (of any kind) exists? If not, you're an atheist. It's as simple as that. There is no fence. There's also no old man in the clouds zapping sinners with lightning bolts. So we are both atheists when it comes to Zeus, cool. But no, I see no evidence it's possible for a creator god to exist. <<<<< (I'M ANSWERING YOUR QUESTION.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jun 22, 2022 20:43:05 GMT
captainbryce - There's far too much wrong in that novel for a detailed response, but it's not that complex. The way to craft a compelling argument isn’t by claiming “wrongness” and then offering excuses for why you won’t address the supposed wrongness. It’s by demonstrating the alleged “wrongness” at each step, and then providing a rational response for it. The fact that you’ve chosen ^THIS as your opening is an obvious tell that you don’t really have a rational counter-argument to each point I made. Which is totally not relevant since we are supposed to be discussing causes OF universes, as opposed to causes WITHIN the universe. The universe being “causal” doesn’t tell us anything about whether universes are “caused”. No there isn’t. There’s no evidence to support a beginning of the universe (nor can there be evidence for such a thing). You can’t use loaded language like this if your goal is to critically evaluate your own position. From my perspective, this hypothesis is no more “nonsensical” than yours is. What you have to do is demonstrate that your hypothesis IS in fact “sensical”, and you haven’t done so yet. Calling other positions nonsensical doesn’t establish that yours is. I agree. But I never said “avoiding god” was my goal. You assumed that because that is your theological assertion about atheists. It’s a straw man argument. My “goal” is to have rationally justified beliefs. God (as described) just happens to not be one. Oh, I’m well aware of that. I only wish that so many theists would come to realize this before using it in their apologetics arguments! 😏 No sir, it’s NOT a logical conclusion. It’s an illogical assertion that amounts to an argument from ignorance! What we “know to be true” is insufficient to draw the conclusions that you have. Your conclusion is hasty because we don’t have enough information and we cannot acquire the necessary information to reach the conclusion you’re trying to reach. We don’t need to do that at all. What we need to do is demonstrate knowledge about the origin of universes before making truth claims about it. Fundamental truths about the world “we live in” don’t do that, because we are only products of an existing universe and observers measuring from within it. Our perspective is extremely limited here! Arguing that what we observe within the universe is indicative of how things operate external to the universe is not logical. That is a fallacy of composition! Things that are true of a part are not necessarily true of the whole. The laws of physics (which include the laws of thermodynamics) are laws that govern how things operate within the universe. They don’t apply to things outside of the universe nor are they telling of how “universes” are existing in the first place. We have no idea why the universe exists because we have only ever observed ONE already existing universe. We have no other universes to investigate, and we cannot see back before the Planck time. So we don’t know anything about whether universes begin to exist, whether they have causes, or anything else that you are concluding. These are assertions with no demonstration. We don’t know why there is “something” rather than “nothing”. It may very well be that something necessarily exists, in which case there would be no beginnings or endings other than our arbitrary designations and measurements. Translation, didn’t want to read and couldn’t address! I wonder if the logic you’re using here applies to this “first cause” you’re positing…😏 I wonder if special pleading will come into play here…
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jun 22, 2022 22:50:21 GMT
There's also no old man in the clouds zapping sinners with lightning bolts. Minus the cartoon imagery, is there a god who punishes sinners? Beats me. But what I do know is that if I were to build a fire and tell you not to put your hand in it because it will burn you, it wouldn't be my fault if you do. And I suspect that if you disagree, you wouldn't trust me to alleviate your pain.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jun 22, 2022 22:51:27 GMT
Why would we assume and how could we know this 'other' existence is 'in motion' or has the ability to 'create' motion while assuming the natural can't just be 'in motion?' Ad hoc assertions must be made in either case.
Are you suggesting that the universe itself is a perpetual motion machine and everything in it is merely its parts?
|
|