Prime Mover Argument

With all the new scientific discoveries in the 21st century, I never thought I will still encounter someone using 11th century scholasticism. I guess some Christian apologist never upgrade. 

A good example is the Prime Mover Argument. 

Using Newton's Law?

 

As stated by Newton's First Law of Motion, bodies do not alter their motions unless forces are applied to them. A body at rest stays at rest. A moving body continues to travel with the same speed and direction unless acted upon by a net force. In other words, a body at rest or a body in motion will continue till some net force acted upon it.  

So what does Newton have to do with it?

Well, proponents of the Prime Mover argument believe that the whole Shebang (the universe) started in static till "someone" started the ball rolling and that someone is the theist's Big Daddy in the Sky called GOD. 

It's Not Scientific

The concept behind the Prime Mover argument is not scientific. The idea came from Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) on one of his arguments on proving the existence of god called Quinque Viae. Aquinas based this not on physics, but from his favorite Greek philosopher Aristotle. Oh yes, this is the same Aristotle that believed the universe is made up of four basic elements - earth, air, fire and water. Anyways, Aristotle believed that the natural state of any body is to be at rest - the same idea that Aquinas used. 

Newton Again?

Using Newton's first law is not a good idea to defend the Prime Mover argument. As stated, the law says that a particle would tend to stay at rest or move (in a constant velocity) if no external force is applied to it. Hence it is as natural for a body to move in a constant velocity as it is for a body to be at rest. There is no need for a Prime Mover.

No Frame of Reference

As experiments done by physicists A.A. Michelson, and E.W. Morley in 1881 and 1887 it were found out that there are no standard and absolute frames in the universe. Albert Einstein used the conclusion of these experiments as one of his postulate in his Special Theory of Relativity. So therefore, these make the idea of a Prime Mover absolute nonsense.

It's Gobbledygook.

Which brings me to a question: "WHERE IN PHYSICS DOES IT SAYS THAT THE NATURAL STATE OF ANY BODY IS AT REST?" 

The concept of a Prime Mover is just ancient Greek speculations and scholastic gibberish. It's not physics, not science. THEREFORE, the Prime Mover is nothing but twaddle.

Until next time.