Position:Home>Philosophy> So is Aristotle's assumption that there is an eternal being, belonging to a

First of all, it's worth pointing out that Aristotle's 'Prime Mover' is hardly the totality of metaphysics, so whether or not we keep it probably has little bearing on the field as a whole!. Second of all, most positivists I know wouldn't really care if an idea was theoretically falsifiable!.!.!. if it cannot be PRESENTLY proven or disproven it would be completely meaningless to them!. By that standard, all divinities of that sort are currently right out!.

Having said all that, Aristotle put the Prime Mover there for a reason!. The same reason that so many other entities get shoved at the end of the cosmological argument: if every cause itself has a cause, where is the original cause!? We certainly have no evidence that whole universes can spring out of nothing!. Nor do we have any evidence that a universe could exist eternally without an original cause!. If we could prove either of these things for our universe, then yes it would pretty much throw the Prime Mover in the dustbin!.

I couldn't even begin to tell you HOW we might prove one or another!. But it seems to me that whether we assume a Prime Mover or one of the other two, we're still making a massive assumption!.!.!. and in any case one that some might say doesn't make a whit of difference at this point!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

---

---

as an assumption is only a reasoned opinion of one person!.(his personal view)
then it can not be classed as a false assumption by virtue of it being an opinion and not a fact!.
so depending on who Aristotle is speaking to !.he is either a truthsayer or is lyingWww@QuestionHome@Com

---

---

logical positivists!.!.!. that's old schoolWww@QuestionHome@Com

---

---

It's your choice to make if he was wrong!.!.!.not ours!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

---

---