Pic proves the existence of God

Pic proves the existence of God.

Prove me wrong.
(I would actually really be interested in your thoughts desu)

English translation?

Loosely translated:
>Ax. 1
In nature, if something moves something else, then this first thing was moved by a another thing.
>Ax 2.
There are things in nature that are in motion.
>Ax. 3
There has to have been a first motion, i.e. there was something that moved something else without having been moved by a another thing beforehand
>Def.
Let s be this first thing that moved something else
>Thm.
s cannot be physical (follows from 1st and 4th line)

Therefore s had to have been supernatural and therefore atheists btfo (maybe)

So this is just a lazy formulation of Aristotelian cosmological argument from 4th century BC.
>Ax.1 : If y is physical and there is something y moves, then there must be something that moves y.
I can't see why I should accept this axiom, immobile mover can be perfectly physical.
>Ax. 2: There exist x and y such that y is physical and it's moved by x
Can't argue with it.
>Ax. 3: There exist y and z such that y moves x but isn't moved by anything
This is basically "I can't proof the existence of God so I just assume it as an axiom" clause. There is no reason to accept this axiom, I can think of a circular movement interdependence with everything being moved by something else, and this is exactly how the physical world looks like form here.
>Def. s: Let's define s as something that moves anything but itsn't moved itself
See how this doesn't mean there is only one such s.
>Thm: Def. s is a negative of the conclusion of the implication in Ax.1 so the negative of it's premise is true. So, "Something that moves anything but isn't moved itself isn't physical"
The logic itself is sound, but it's based on unacceptable axioms. Also the proper conclusion should be "There exists something that isn't physical" and this is a far cry from proving God, whatever loose definition of the latter you're trying to use.

>Aristoteliam cosmological argument
Huh, interesting. I based this on the Athenian's argument in Plato's Laws. Gonna read some more on that, thanks for the hint.
>immobile mover can be perfectly physical
How so? Isn't this basically the law of causality?
I don't mean immobile in the sense that the object appears to rest in place, though I assume you know this as well.
>Ax. 3
So you're saying that all these elements of the circle "have always been" or appeared simultaneously?
>doesn't mean there is only one such s
Wasn't the point of the argument
>Thm
The conclusion I want to make is that there is a first cause (first mover) which isn't physical.
Sorry if these are stupid questions, I'm rather new to philosophy.

neat but how do we prove those axioms

Simple.

God is not a physical being but an eternal supernatural triune spirit being.

>Isn't this basically the law of causality?
What do you mean? If x causes y to move, doesn't mean x have to move itself. Moreover, your eventual conclusion is that there exists such immobile mover, except it's not physical. So why can it be physical? Or why physical thing can't move itself?
>So you're saying that all these elements of the circle "have always been" or appeared simultaneously?
Basically yes, I say this is possible and so I can't accept the axiom.
>The conclusion I want to make is that there is a first cause (first mover) which isn't physical.
I don't get why do you want to bring "physical" into the picture, the traditional form of the argument just tries to prove existence of a first mover and then declares it God.

It assumes causality applies at all physical scales when that doesn't seem to be the case these days.

Plato argues on the basis of two types of movements. One that moves others but not itself, this is the movement of the things in nature, i.e. the physical. If what we see is the result of one thing moving another thing, and that then moving another thing again and so on, then there had to have been something that started this chain. The first movement cannot have been of this type. The soul is that which moves both itself and others. He argues that thus the soul had to have come first.

Have you ever heard of the first law of Newton? That alone destroys axiom 1.

How so? Isn't it exactly the opposite? The object won't move unless it is moved, but that by which it is moved too won't move unless it is moved.
Unless you argue that everything has always already been in motion?

What do you mean? If x causes y to move, doesn't mean x have to move itself.

Well yeah that follows from the conservation of momentum. I think the proper way to discard the axiom is by saying that there exist things which have always moved. Or better: that x doesn't cause y to move, but they simultaneously react to a force. One cannot distinguish the objecting moving from the object moved.

>everything
Actually, I guess just one thing will do, huh

>Unless you argue that everything has always already been in motion?

Exactly. Also do not disregard that movement is perspective based. 0 movement is also movement.

Things can move without being moved by an external force on the quantum scale.

>Metaphysical beings
Stupid

So really, the argument rests on another axiom, that of an initial state where everything is still?

Are you sure? I don't know much about quantum physics, but I did read pic related (which may well be wrong though):
>In quantum mechanics, the principle of causality is supported by a great number of measurements, which on average behave causally again

Well yeah if there is some non-zero interval of time where everything is still, then you would need some outside force. That is in classical mechanics though, as mentioned, in quantum this all flies out of the window. In quantum mechanics, particles appear and dissappear spontaneously, and we cannot even know if there is such an interval as I described above.

Yes, I am. When many measurements are made, you can make conclusions using statistics that describe general behaviour, but examining any one isolated "subject" is a very different beast.

To add to what I just said, there is also the problem of unstability of certain physical systems, which with any perturbation would erupt into movement.

What they're trying to say here is that if you take a lot of measurements, the average of those will converge to what one would calculate with classical mechanics.

Thanks for the insight, everyone!

>In nature, if something moves something else, then this first thing was moved by a another thing.
Sometimes the movement can come from a stationary thing. e.g. explosion. But sigma(p) stays constant of course.

I wouldn't recommend anybody to argue that an explosion is something stationary. Is an explosion even an object?