Talk:Unmoved mover

message: Does Aristotle ever mention why there is no unmoved mover for the earth? I understand he says that the unmoved mover occupies the space beyond the celestial stars for the celestial bodies, however it is my understanding that Aristotle believes the earth is in the center of the universe and therefore does not move. However, is there no explanation as to why there is no unmoved mover for the earth other than it is at the center of the universe and is motionless?Wehl0000 (talk) 22:06, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: Is it possible to add a section on the flaws of Aristotle's reasoning, or would that be POV? 68.122.97.87 (talk) 17:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: That which moves without moving is a pre-scientific term for "catalyst" (a word of Greek origin.)
Any theological issues arise from the question:  "What is the origin of the catalyst?"
RC Silk (talk) 18:30, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: A short comment: If the above is true, then Aristotle's UMM is not differentiated from Avicenna's God.  The essence of the UMM is entelekheia, not existence.  It's necessity is also distinct from Avicenna's use.  Maybe I will add a comment in a week or two.  132.205.103.129 22:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Essence of Unmoved Mover = Necessary Existence?

message: I added a section on Aristotle's reasoning, but unfortunately don't have time to track down a reference right now. I also note that the "Substance and change" section claims there were three types of substances, but only describes two. If I have time to dig out my old philosophy notes I will try to clean this up. --Culix 18:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: What is the difference between the Unmoved Mover and the First Cause? --Dominus Noster (talk) 16:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Just out mild curiosity

message: I think that merging this page with the suggested page is fine, as long as this title will remain searchable. I found this page today b/c I was looking for "unmoved mover". I would never have thought to search for "primum mobilus" (or any other Harry Potter-esque phrase).  :)
And as far as the content goes, this is exactly the kind of overview I was looking for. Adding more sources may be worthwhile, but I definitely think this page is useful, even in its current, limited form.
Sah65 (talk) 17:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Unmoved mover is not the same thing as "Primum movens" or prime mover (a special instance of the plural unmoved movers). I've removed the merge tags on these pages and added Primum movens to the see also section. I'm sorry to mention Sah65, that I'm not entirely sure what this article is (meant to be) about, but as an overview of "unmoved movers" it's incredibly poor and you'd be well advised to keep researching.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 12:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment about merging / cleaning up

message: This page has it in in Greke in the Greek letters, but doesn't alsot transliterate it into English letter so I can know how to say it?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.144.34.34 (talk) 18:22, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  In Greek 

message: The article states definitively that Aristotle was a polytheist based on two footnotes.  The first is to a review of a book arguing for a "revolutionary thesis" that Aristotle was a refined polytheist.  The second footnote is to a blog which does not even discuss the matter.  Most likely it is trying to introduce a response to the blog which is nothing more than an unsubstantiated statement.  First, such a statement belongs more properly in the article about Aristotle himself; second, the proof for the statement is insufficient to demonstrate academic consensus and thus should not be portrayed as fact; and finally, just what does the statement contribute to the overall argument of the article?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.250.214.133 (talk) 06:27, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: If we are calling Aristotle polytheist in any simple way that would be problematic. With a subject like this it is probably possibly to find sources which can say anything at all, but Wikipedia has to try to present something which uncontroversially reflects what the best sources say, and if sources say lots of different things, then we need to reflect that. To say the least, Aristotle is at least sometimes understood to be something like a monotheist.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:25, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

text: Evidence that Aristole questioned the deity of Zeus or Athena is none. Thomas Aquinas simply twisted Aristole's ideas with his natural theology.--2601:C4:C000:3AB0:1410:CB5E:7326:111D (talk) 08:06, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aristotle the polytheist   

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Unmoved mover. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110516145329/http://www.calstatela.edu/faculty/hmendel/Ancient%20Mathematics/Eudoxus/Astronomy/EudoxusHomocentricSpheres.htm to http://www.calstatela.edu/faculty/hmendel/Ancient%20Mathematics/Eudoxus/Astronomy/EudoxusHomocentricSpheres.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:21, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :Uncaused cause and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at  until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Steel1943 (talk) 18:43, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Uncaused cause" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: Why isn't this page under the category Arguments for the existence of God? I understand there can be some debate about this topic. It's intention, ramifications, etc. But let's be honest here, this topic is WIDELY used and thought of in the context of God's existence, especially recently by modern philosophers. 134.16.113.7 (talk) 00:21, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  As an argument for the existence of God