Aquinas' first and second proofs and their relation

[Richca]

In the five proofs for the existence of God in the Summa Theologica, St Thomas Aquinas manifests some aspect of God or His causal activity in creation. Here, I intend to focus on the first and second proofs and how I believe they are related to each other at least in one sense.

I believe the first and second proofs for the existence of God are related to one another if we consider that one and the same action can be considered either as being received into the patient which is the concern of the first proof, namely, things are undergoing change or motion, or this same action can be considered as proceeding from the agent which is the concern of the second proof, for the agent is an efficient cause. In the SCG, Book 2, chapter 16, [7], Aquinas says “that same act which belongs to the agent as proceeding therefrom belongs to the patient as residing therein.”

St Thomas says that “action and passion coincide as to the substance of motion” (ST, I, q.45, art.2). Recall that action and passion are accidents of substances. Action in relation to the first proof is an action of a being that acts on another being and its counterpart in this other being is passion. Passion is receptivity and means being acted upon. Potency is another name for passion and act for action and thus we have the concepts of potency and act in the first proof. Aquinas’ focus in the first proof involves things undergoing change or motion or being acted on. As he says, this is only brought about by a being in act or an agent cause or mover. For example, the wood is the recipient of the fire’s action of heating, the fire is the efficient or agent cause of the heating of the wood. So, the first proof involves efficient causes and movers which is the focus of the second proof but its primary focus is on the recipient of the action of efficient causes for Aquinas says “It is certain and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion.”

The second proof focuses on the efficient cause or mover. An efficient cause brings about an effect and the effect of an efficient cause is the recipient of the agent’s action. So here we are looking at an action that proceeds from an agent which terminates in a patient or effect such as the fire heating the wood. This same action can be considered under the viewpoint of the patient as receiving the action of the fire which Aquinas does in the first proof.
The first mover in the first proof is the first efficient cause in the second proof. For an agent cause among creatures such as the fire or hand in the first proof moves or changes a recipient of its action and brings about an effect, namely, a being of some kind such as the heating of the wood or the movement of the stick, something is different in the being of the recipient of the agent’s action.

Being that God is the first mover which is the same to say he is the first efficient cause, this has enormous consequences in the metaphysics of St Thomas and God’s causal activity in the world which is verified in Holy Scripture and the teaching of the Catholic Church. In God creating, we find that the effect of God’s action is the very existence of creatures and all that belongs to their existence in whatever mode of being this may be such as their substance, accidents, powers, actions. God is the first efficient cause and creatures are the effect of His action which effect is existence. The relation of creatures to God is as the relation of passion to action as among things moved and movers in the created universe (cf. ST, I, q.45, art.3; SCG, book 3, part 1, chapter 65, [5]) The being of creatures is a participated being; creatures have a received existence and this existence is related to God’s existence as potency to act and passivity to action. St Thomas says “A creature’s potentiality to existence is merely receptive; the active power belongs to God Himself, from whom existence is derived” (ST, I, q.104, art.4).

Consequently, from the foregoing we can see that creatures are totally dependent on God for their existence and everything that belongs to their existence such as the kind of substances they are, their accidents, powers, and the actions that flow from these powers. All of this flows from God’s action and causality as the stick is moved by the hand. At the same time, creatures have a causality of their own but which is derived and flows from God’s action. For God’s action which proceeds from Him is received in the creature and is in the creature as its act. God’s action however does not involve motion, change, or time in Him as if He is in potentiality in any way for He is pure act, purely actual, pure activity. Motion, change, and time are in creatures because all creatures are a composition of potentiality and act in one way or another.

God bless, Richca

 

[Tomdstone]

In the five proofs for the existence of God in the Summa Theologica, St Thomas Aquinas manifests some aspect of God or His causal activity in creation. Here, I intend to focus on the first and second proofs and how I believe they are related to each other at least in one sense.

I believe the first and second proofs for the existence of God are related to one another if we consider that one and the same action can be considered either as being received into the patient which is the concern of the first proof, namely, things are undergoing change or motion, or this same action can be considered as proceeding from the agent which is the concern of the second proof, for the agent is an efficient cause. In the SCG, Book 2, chapter 16, [7], Aquinas says “that same act which belongs to the agent as proceeding therefrom belongs to the patient as residing therein.”

St Thomas says that “action and passion coincide as to the substance of motion” (ST, I, q.45, art.2). Recall that action and passion are accidents of substances. Action in relation to the first proof is an action of a being that acts on another being and its counterpart in this other being is passion. Passion is receptivity and means being acted upon. Potency is another name for passion and act for action and thus we have the concepts of potency and act in the first proof. Aquinas’ focus in the first proof involves things undergoing change or motion or being acted on. As he says, this is only brought about by a being in act or an agent cause or mover. For example, the wood is the recipient of the fire’s action of heating, the fire is the efficient or agent cause of the heating of the wood. So, the first proof involves efficient causes and movers which is the focus of the second proof but its primary focus is on the recipient of the action of efficient causes for Aquinas says “It is certain and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion.”

The second proof focuses on the efficient cause or mover. An efficient cause brings about an effect and the effect of an efficient cause is the recipient of the agent’s action. So here we are looking at an action that proceeds from an agent which terminates in a patient or effect such as the fire heating the wood. This same action can be considered under the viewpoint of the patient as receiving the action of the fire which Aquinas does in the first proof.
The first mover in the first proof is the first efficient cause in the second proof. For an agent cause among creatures such as the fire or hand in the first proof moves or changes a recipient of its action and brings about an effect, namely, a being of some kind such as the heating of the wood or the movement of the stick, something is different in the being of the recipient of the agent’s action.

Being that God is the first mover which is the same to say he is the first efficient cause, this has enormous consequences in the metaphysics of St Thomas and God’s causal activity in the world which is verified in Holy Scripture and the teaching of the Catholic Church. In God creating, we find that the effect of God’s action is the very existence of creatures and all that belongs to their existence in whatever mode of being this may be such as their substance, accidents, powers, actions. God is the first efficient cause and creatures are the effect of His action which effect is existence. The relation of creatures to God is as the relation of passion to action as among things moved and movers in the created universe (cf. ST, I, q.45, art.3; SCG, book 3, part 1, chapter 65, [5]) The being of creatures is a participated being; creatures have a received existence and this existence is related to God’s existence as potency to act and passivity to action. St Thomas says “A creature’s potentiality to existence is merely receptive; the active power belongs to God Himself, from whom existence is derived” (ST, I, q.104, art.4).

Consequently, from the foregoing we can see that creatures are totally dependent on God for their existence and everything that belongs to their existence such as the kind of substances they are, their accidents, powers, and the actions that flow from these powers. All of this flows from God’s action and causality as the stick is moved by the hand. At the same time, creatures have a causality of their own but which is derived and flows from God’s action. For God’s action which proceeds from Him is received in the creature and is in the creature as its act. God’s action however does not involve motion, change, or time in Him as if He is in potentiality in any way for He is pure act, purely actual, pure activity. Motion, change, and time are in creatures because all creatures are a composition of potentiality and act in one way or another.

God bless, Richca

The idea of First Mover and First Cause does seem to me to be pretty closely related. Unfortunately, the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics may imply that situations can arise which cannot be easily described by causal laws.

 

[Paleocon]

The idea of First Mover and First Cause does seem to me to be pretty closely related. Unfortunately, the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics may imply that situations can arise which cannot be easily described by causal laws.

Do you not see the contradiction in that pseudo-philosophy?

 

[Tomdstone]

Do you not see the contradiction in that pseudo-philosophy?

Please explain the contradiction in quantum mechanics.

 

[Arrowood]

I think a modernist interpretation of quantum mechanics has concluded things like there being no efficient cause of certain micro phenomena. But (if my understanding is correct) all quantum mechanics has discovered is that different rules apply to sub-atomic physics. We just haven’t discovered all of those rules yet, so we can’t identify all of the causes.

I don’t think quantum mechanics disproves Saint Thomas Aquinas’ proofs.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

The idea of First Mover and First Cause does seem to me to be pretty closely related. Unfortunately, the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics may imply that situations can arise which cannot be easily described by causal laws.

Unfortunately you are wrong. It is not surprising that once you get down to ultimate particles ( which no one has ever seen and will never be seen ) that one cannot identify causal and effect relationships. This is no justification for saying that they do not exist. It is simply to say that they cannot be identified. Thomas, indeed Sacred Scripture and even Catholic teaching hold that God is the cause ( at least ultimately ) of all that is, all that happens.and Thomas Aquinas has determined that all that happens is also the result of secondary causes exercising their proper causality.

Pax
Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I think a modernist interpretation of quantum mechanics has concluded things like there being no efficient cause of certain micro phenomena. But (if my understanding is correct) all quantum mechanics has discovered is that different rules apply to sub-atomic physics. We just haven’t discovered all of those rules yet, so we can’t identify all of the causes.

I don’t think quantum mechanics disproves Saint Thomas Aquinas’ proofs.

I don’t think they have even proven that. It is something merely asserted. Just because we cannot see the causality involved ( because the " objects " themselves are unobservable ) is no intelligent reason for abandoning causality.

Pax
Linus2nd

 

[apfal]

One has to be careful about the word “cause” as it has multiple meanings.

These supposedly “causeless” quantum events still obey the laws of physics (quantum mechanics) - they are not truly chaotic or causeless.

And I think even the idea of “stuff” (particles) appearing “from nowhere” is misleading anyway since in these theories apparently “empty” space is not in fact “empty”. So I think causality (in a broader sense that Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas would recognize) still applies.

Not that I am either a philosopher or a physicist, merely someone with an amateur interest in both…

 

[Paleocon]

Please explain the contradiction in quantum mechanics.

X indicates whatever physics principle you’re citing (since this refutation is general)

Your argument is summed up as:

Because of X, it is possible for things to come into existence without a cause.

Thus the absurdity should become even more obvious.

 

[ChainBreaker]

One has to be careful about the word “cause” as it has multiple meanings.

These supposedly “causeless” quantum events still obey the laws of physics (quantum mechanics) - they are not truly chaotic or causeless.

And I think even the idea of “stuff” (particles) appearing “from nowhere” is misleading anyway since in these theories apparently “empty” space is not in fact “empty”. So I think causality (in a broader sense that Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas would recognize) still applies.

Not that I am either a philosopher or a physicist, merely someone with an amateur interest in both…

Well done

You may be an amateur but you have already proven yourself to know more then some on here who claim to be well educated in Aquinas.

 

[Tomdstone]

Thomas, indeed Sacred Scripture and even Catholic teaching hold that God is the cause ( at least ultimately ) of all that is,…

I heard that many things written in Sacred Scripture are not believed today. For example,
Ecclesiastes 1:5. The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises.
Today, we believe that it is the earth that is rotating and that the sun does not hurry back to where it rises.
Or:
The sun, moon, and stars were created after the earth. (Gen. 1:9-18)
Today we believe that the earth was created after the stars.
Or:
According to (1 Corinthians 11:2-16), women are to wear headcovering in Church. Today, at least in the Roman Catholic Churches (but not some others) women are not obligated to wear headcovering in Church.

 

[lmelahn]

In the five proofs for the existence of God in the Summa Theologica, St Thomas Aquinas manifests some aspect of God or His causal activity in creation. Here, I intend to focus on the first and second proofs and how I believe they are related to each other at least in one sense.

The relation between the two proofs is much debated. In my opinion, St. Thomas in his First Way is beginning with what he considers the easiest proof, because it starts from what Aquinas calls “accidental change” (changes that do not cause the generation or corruption of substances; for example, human growth, melting ice, and the motion of projectiles are all “accidental” changes). That, according to Aquinas, is the easiest kind of change to observe.

The second proof simply opens up to consideration all kinds of changes and causes. In particular, he includes the generation and corruption of substances (for example, the conception and death of animals or chemical changes such as burning). This kind of change, which he calls “substantial change,” is less obvious than “accidental” change. (In the case of death, for example, we all see that the animal has stopped breathing, but it is less obvious that its very substance has changed to that of a dead body.)

As a sort of endpoint of his analysis, he even comes to the most profound of causes: creation. (Creation is different from all other causes, because it does not come about through a change. A change is always a passage from some previous state to the current one; when God creates something, however, He simply gives it is being, without using any pre-existing materials.)

(If you are brave, here is a good article on the subject of the structure of the Five Ways.)

 

[lmelahn]

I heard that many things written in Sacred Scripture are not believed today. For example,
Ecclesiastes 1:5. The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises.
Today, we believe that it is the earth that is rotating and that the sun does not hurry back to where it rises.
Or:
The sun, moon, and stars were created after the earth. (Gen. 1:9-18)
Today we believe that the earth was created after the stars.
Or:
According to (1 Corinthians 11:2-16), women are to wear headcovering in Church. Today, at least in the Roman Catholic Churches (but not some others) women are not obligated to wear headcovering in Church.

This is not the forum for exegesis, but briefly, all of these things are correct in their own context. In the first two passages, it is clear that the sacred author is not attempting to affirm anything as scientific fact. Even today we say, “The sun will rise at 6:10 A.M.,” but we know how to distinguish the language of appearances from technical scientific language.

As far as Genesis is concerned, the very creation account itself indicates that the precise order of events is not meant to be taken perfectly ad litteram. (If it were, we would have to deal with the apparent contradictions between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2.) The author is not intending to expose scientifically the generation of the solar system, but is merely affirming the fact that God is the Creator of the universe. Again, no problem is posed if we distinguish literary language from technical scientific language.

As far as 1 Corinthians is concerned, exegetes tell us that there was a particular situation in the Corinthian Church. Back then, and in that particular place, removing the head covering was seen as a kind of revolt against authority. That situation has long since ceased and no longer applies.

 

[lmelahn]

The idea of First Mover and First Cause does seem to me to be pretty closely related. Unfortunately, the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics may imply that situations can arise which cannot be easily described by causal laws.

I don’t think that quantum mechanics fundamentally threatens the validity of either the First or Second Way.

Aquinas’ notion of cause is rather different from that of most scientists today. For him it is any principle on which something depends for its being (either its very existence or a particular state of being).

Most scientists, I think, have at the back of their minds that a “cause” more like an explanation for observable phenomena. Real causality seems almost reduced to logical causality: I can’t say something is caused by another unless there is a causal law. (This is to be expected, since modern science derives much of its inspiration from the mechanism of René Descartes and the empiricism of David Hume.)

If we take cause to mean “dependency in being” (which I think is a better concept of cause), then quantum mechanics poses little problem.

Take Schrödinger’s Cat, for example.

(For those unfamiliar with this, it is a “thought experiment” in which the life or death of a cat depends on a quantum event—say the radioactive decay of a single atom of uranium. Suppose a cat is placed in a sealed box with the sample of uranium, an extremely sensitive Geiger counter, and a vial of poison gas. If the Geiger counter detects gamma rays—a couple of photons in this case—then it is set up to drop a heavy object on the vial, exposing the gas and killing cat. Note that the experiment has never actually been run .

Some have gone so far as to say that because the quantum event is uncertain until it is observed, the cat is simultaneously dead and live until the scientist opens the box.)

Now, the death of the cat, if it occurs, depends on (in Thomistic terms, is caused by) a radioactive decay that may or may not take place during the experiment. It is true that we cannot know whether this decay has taken place until we open the box and examine the cat, but the dependence of the cat’s life on the uranium atom (its “causal” dependence, in Thomistic terms) is unaffected by our ignorance.

There is no need to posit a half-dead / half-alive cat, therefore; merely our ignorance of its death or survival.

 

[Tomdstone]

I don’t think that quantum mechanics fundamentally threatens the validity of either the First or Second Way.

Aquinas’ notion of cause is rather different from that of most scientists today. For him it is any principle on which something depends for its being (either its very existence or a particular state of being).

Most scientists, I think, have at the back of their minds that a “cause” more like an explanation for observable phenomena. Real causality seems almost reduced to logical causality: I can’t say something is caused by another unless there is a causal law. (This is to be expected, since modern science derives much of its inspiration from the mechanism of René Descartes and the empiricism of David Hume.)

If we take cause to mean “dependency in being” (which I think is a better concept of cause), then quantum mechanics poses little problem.

Take Schrödinger’s Cat, for example.

(For those unfamiliar with this, it is a “thought experiment” in which the life or death of a cat depends on a quantum event—say the radioactive decay of a single atom of uranium. Suppose a cat is placed in a sealed box with the sample of uranium, an extremely sensitive Geiger counter, and a vial of poison gas. If the Geiger counter detects gamma rays—a couple of photons in this case—then it is set up to drop a heavy object on the vial, exposing the gas and killing cat. Note that the experiment has never actually been run .

Some have gone so far as to say that because the quantum event is uncertain until it is observed, the cat is simultaneously dead and live until the scientist opens the box.)

Now, the death of the cat, if it occurs, depends on (in Thomistic terms, is caused by) a radioactive decay that may or may not take place during the experiment. It is true that we cannot know whether this decay has taken place until we open the box and examine the cat, but the dependence of the cat’s life on the uranium atom (its “causal” dependence, in Thomistic terms) is unaffected by our ignorance.

There is no need to posit a half-dead / half-alive cat, therefore; merely our ignorance of its death or survival.

Your explanation is called the hidden variables theory which has been discounted by things such as Bell’s theorem or even quantum entanglement.

 

[apfal]

Well done

You may be an amateur but you have already proven yourself to know more then some on here who claim to be well educated in Aquinas.

Some people think that quantum mechanics allows the universe to apear randomly from nothing, since virtual particles can ‘pop out of empty space’ momentarily.

This is, however, wrong - virtual particles are not really particles (they are perturbations in a field) and do not come out of nothing (again, there is a field).

Some physicists say the term ‘virtual particles’ is overly misleading
profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/virtual-particles-what-are-they/

Again, not a physicist, but I’m pretty sure this is right.

 

[Tomdstone]

Some people think that quantum mechanics allows the universe to apear randomly from nothing, since virtual particles can ‘pop out of empty space’ momentarily.

This is, however, wrong - virtual particles are not really particles (they are perturbations in a field) and do not come out of nothing (again, there is a field).

Some physicists say the term ‘virtual particles’ is overly misleading
profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/virtual-particles-what-are-they/

Again, not a physicist, but I’m pretty sure this is right.

Good article. Thanks.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I heard that many things written in Sacred Scripture are not believed today. For example,
Ecclesiastes 1:5. The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises.
Today, we believe that it is the earth that is rotating and that the sun does not hurry back to where it rises.
Or:
The sun, moon, and stars were created after the earth. (Gen. 1:9-18)
Today we believe that the earth was created after the stars.
Or:
According to (1 Corinthians 11:2-16), women are to wear headcovering in Church. Today, at least in the Roman Catholic Churches (but not some others) women are not obligated to wear headcovering in Church.

As you know Catholics are not Protestants. Catholics always have believed that the Catholic Church is the only authorized interpreter of Sacred Scripture and the only authyorized teacher of faith and morals. I don’t intend to get into debates on the meaning of Scripture. If you want to know what the Church teaches, fine. Just say so. But I won’t debate those teachings.

Linus2nd

 

[thinkandmull]

I don’t think that quantum mechanics fundamentally threatens the validity of either the First or Second Way.

Aquinas’ notion of cause is rather different from that of most scientists today. For him it is any principle on which something depends for its being (either its very existence or a particular state of being).

Most scientists, I think, have at the back of their minds that a “cause” more like an explanation for observable phenomena. Real causality seems almost reduced to logical causality: I can’t say something is caused by another unless there is a causal law. (This is to be expected, since modern science derives much of its inspiration from the mechanism of René Descartes and the empiricism of David Hume.)

If we take cause to mean “dependency in being” (which I think is a better concept of cause), then quantum mechanics poses little problem.

Take Schrödinger’s Cat, for example.

(For those unfamiliar with this, it is a “thought experiment” in which the life or death of a cat depends on a quantum event—say the radioactive decay of a single atom of uranium. Suppose a cat is placed in a sealed box with the sample of uranium, an extremely sensitive Geiger counter, and a vial of poison gas. If the Geiger counter detects gamma rays—a couple of photons in this case—then it is set up to drop a heavy object on the vial, exposing the gas and killing cat. Note that the experiment has never actually been run .

Some have gone so far as to say that because the quantum event is uncertain until it is observed, the cat is simultaneously dead and live until the scientist opens the box.)

Now, the death of the cat, if it occurs, depends on (in Thomistic terms, is caused by) a radioactive decay that may or may not take place during the experiment. It is true that we cannot know whether this decay has taken place until we open the box and examine the cat, but the dependence of the cat’s life on the uranium atom (its “causal” dependence, in Thomistic terms) is unaffected by our ignorance.

There is no need to posit a half-dead / half-alive cat, therefore; merely our ignorance of its death or survival.

What physical discoveries did Descartes make that effected modern science? His method was not different that Aquinas’s or any other persons. It just applying the mind to reality.

 

[thinkandmull]

In the five proofs for the existence of God in the Summa Theologica, St Thomas Aquinas manifests some aspect of God or His causal activity in creation. Here, I intend to focus on the first and second proofs and how I believe they are related to each other at least in one sense.

I believe the first and second proofs for the existence of God are related to one another if we consider that one and the same action can be considered either as being received into the patient which is the concern of the first proof, namely, things are undergoing change or motion, or this same action can be considered as proceeding from the agent which is the concern of the second proof, for the agent is an efficient cause. In the SCG, Book 2, chapter 16, [7], Aquinas says “that same act which belongs to the agent as proceeding therefrom belongs to the patient as residing therein.”

St Thomas says that “action and passion coincide as to the substance of motion” (ST, I, q.45, art.2). Recall that action and passion are accidents of substances. Action in relation to the first proof is an action of a being that acts on another being and its counterpart in this other being is passion. Passion is receptivity and means being acted upon. Potency is another name for passion and act for action and thus we have the concepts of potency and act in the first proof. Aquinas’ focus in the first proof involves things undergoing change or motion or being acted on. As he says, this is only brought about by a being in act or an agent cause or mover. For example, the wood is the recipient of the fire’s action of heating, the fire is the efficient or agent cause of the heating of the wood. So, the first proof involves efficient causes and movers which is the focus of the second proof but its primary focus is on the recipient of the action of efficient causes for Aquinas says “It is certain and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion.”

The second proof focuses on the efficient cause or mover. An efficient cause brings about an effect and the effect of an efficient cause is the recipient of the agent’s action. So here we are looking at an action that proceeds from an agent which terminates in a patient or effect such as the fire heating the wood. This same action can be considered under the viewpoint of the patient as receiving the action of the fire which Aquinas does in the first proof.
The first mover in the first proof is the first efficient cause in the second proof. For an agent cause among creatures such as the fire or hand in the first proof moves or changes a recipient of its action and brings about an effect, namely, a being of some kind such as the heating of the wood or the movement of the stick, something is different in the being of the recipient of the agent’s action.

Being that God is the first mover which is the same to say he is the first efficient cause, this has enormous consequences in the metaphysics of St Thomas and God’s causal activity in the world which is verified in Holy Scripture and the teaching of the Catholic Church. In God creating, we find that the effect of God’s action is the very existence of creatures and all that belongs to their existence in whatever mode of being this may be such as their substance, accidents, powers, actions. God is the first efficient cause and creatures are the effect of His action which effect is existence. The relation of creatures to God is as the relation of passion to action as among things moved and movers in the created universe (cf. ST, I, q.45, art.3; SCG, book 3, part 1, chapter 65, [5]) The being of creatures is a participated being; creatures have a received existence and this existence is related to God’s existence as potency to act and passivity to action. St Thomas says “A creature’s potentiality to existence is merely receptive; the active power belongs to God Himself, from whom existence is derived” (ST, I, q.104, art.4).

Consequently, from the foregoing we can see that creatures are totally dependent on God for their existence and everything that belongs to their existence such as the kind of substances they are, their accidents, powers, and the actions that flow from these powers. All of this flows from God’s action and causality as the stick is moved by the hand. At the same time, creatures have a causality of their own but which is derived and flows from God’s action. For God’s action which proceeds from Him is received in the creature and is in the creature as its act. God’s action however does not involve motion, change, or time in Him as if He is in potentiality in any way for He is pure act, purely actual, pure activity. Motion, change, and time are in creatures because all creatures are a composition of potentiality and act in one way or another.

God bless, Richca

Your way of explaining this displays the belief that the First Way is dependent on the Second Way. If the First Way isn’t contradictory to an eternal world, than he is arguing for an efficient cause of the eternal motions. Then does he clarify in the second way that he you can’t go to infinity in efficient causes? He doesn’t really have an argument for this, if the eternity of motion is possible. The sound of the First Way is that there CANNOT be an eternity of motion, because then all the motions would be intermediate and both odd and even, which doesn’t make sense. But if there can be an eternity of this motion causes that, then why can’t there be an eternal sequence of efficient causes going up. How is the vertical different from the horizontal?