Kindly excuse the mouthful of a heading, I could not think of a way to make it any shorter. An unmoved-mover just like the first cause argument for god posit that an indefinite regression is impossible.
Yours truly contends that an unmoved-mover or first cause is a logical absurdity and any such argument is doomed to fail. The proponents of these arguments start by making inferences about what we observe about things in the universe and infer that this must be true for the universe and arrive at a first cause. This error, I think, develops from a misunderstanding of causality.
Schopenhauer in The World as Will and Idea, Vol 2 defines causality or rather the law of causality thus
every change has its cause in another change which immediately precedes it.
The law only deals with changes in the state of matter and there is no ground a priori for inferring from the existence of given things, their previous non-existence. As such, the mere existence of a thing does not justify us in inferring it has a cause.
From the above, an unmoved mover is a logical impossibility. This is so because for this unmoved-mover to move something, it must be moved. There has to be something else preceding it’s first movement whatever that movement is. Whereas the person who made the above statement argues that it is a cognitive requirement for humans, I must contend that it is impossible to think of it. It is not given by experience[observation] or intuitively.
Anyone who makes the cosmological argument and stops at the first cause kills his own argument by negating that which was the starting point of his premise. There is no rescue possible from such a pit and the argument must be abandoned at once.
I would at this point like to hear from those who find the cosmological arguments persuasive for theism to at least demonstrate where they think this strength lies for I do not see it.