Hi,
Can someone explain to me what are the problems with the proof for God’s existence from motion? Specifically Aquinas’ first proof? What are the refutations for this out there?
God bless,
Ut
Hi Ut. You can read Aquinas by Edward Feser again, that may help. Also, he is coming out with a new book in March which will discuss the essentials of Aristotelian-Thomistic philosophy. He said that it would not be a discussion on the Five Ways. Blato has made valid observations above. I have said a lot about this on the thread, " The First Way Explained " and will be discussing more. I also made some important comments on the thread, " St. Thomas’ argument from Contingency, posts # 34, 40, 62, 77. I may comment more there but it is useless arguing with Belorg. Committed Atheists will not admit to anything which even hints at the possible existence of God and they constantly bring up red herrings like Modern Science and they absolutely refuse to read Thomas himself.
The key to my argument is two fold. Nothing in Science invalidates any of the Five Ways, not even the First Way. Even in the case of local motion ( and the First Way is not limited to local motion but includes all forms of change). Secondly, all the Five Ways are also concerned with the cause of the existence of limited and contingent beings, these being the movers and the moved, who must ultimately have their existence from the Unmoved Mover. For nothing moves or is moved unless it first exist. And neither can exist unless it first be brought into existence by the Unmoved Mover.
Now when the Unmoved Mover brings beings into existence, He gives them their Nature by which they are
moved naturally. This is easy to see in living things where one part moves another and thus the whole creature, which is in turn moved by its soul. But it is the Unmoved Mover that has given the creature its
Nature. In other words, the Unmoved Mover gives every creature, as a part of its nature, all it needs to move and function naturally without the need for an external mover.
This applies to inanimate beings as well. The Unmoved Mover gives their
Natures every facility and potentiality to function and move naturally according to His Divine Plan.
Thus, if I fire a rocket into space and thus apply impetus to it, all its parts have been endowed by the creator with
Natures, having the potentiality to receive this impetus and keep the rocket going indefinitely, as long as it is not countered by a contrary force. ( Contrary to what Newton said however, the rocket will not keep going for an infinite time because space is not a vaccum.) However if it were, then, by the impetus which it has received it will continue moving forever. But if so, it will be due to an infinite potential for infinite movement provided by the Creator at creation. So it is the Creator who is the Prime Mover of the rocket, the men who designed the ship, the fuel which supplied the impetus, the parts of the rocket, etc, would be instrumental movers only.
It is important to notice here that, this is a natural movement. Once the impetus is received the instrumental movers who built the ship and who fired it and the energy which supplied the energy can be forgotten. There is no accompanying mover to the moved. And this is true in all local motion which occurs naturally. The only time an accompanying mover would be required would be in examples of constrained movement like pushing a car up a hill.
So in the famous phrase, " Quod enim movetur ab alia movetur, " the other, the mover is Primary Mover who created a
Nature with the potentiality of receiving an impetus capable of moving the ship, naturally and spontaneously, forever.
Thus, this is not a case of a finite power exercising infinite poser. It is a case of the Prime Mover creating
Natures capable of converting a finite impetus into infinite motion, exercising an infinite power, instrumentally, supplied by the Prime Mover, Who alone has Infinite Power.
So those who misinterpreted Newton are proved wrong. Newton, more than once, declared that there was a Divine Cause which caused the natures from which his Laws were abstracted, to move and behave as they did.
God is the God of gravity as well. So those who ridiculed Aristotle and Thomas for their explanation of the movement of heavy and light bodies seeking their proper place are proven wrong also, These movements are explained by the potentiality of these objects to
be moved by gravity to their proper places. And it is God, the Creator of their
Natures, Who gave their natures the potential to be moved by gravity and to seek their proper places.
Other arguments can be made to answer Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. But I think enough has been shown to make reasonable people see that nothing excapes God’s causality, even if we cannot explain it down to the " T " or even if we cannot see the " objects, " as in Quntum Mechanics.
And so we see that in every case of local motion we are led to the Prime Mover who creates the
Natures of beings, who move naturally, and with the potentially and power He created them with. All arguments contrary to this are nothing but Sophistical Red Herrings.
If you are interested in a more detailed explaination of these things you will need to get access to a really great book, Nature and Motion in the Middle Ages by John A. Weisheipl O.P. Good libraries should have a copy. Now out of print but can still be found at super high cost. I paid $140 for mine and that was cheap!!!
Linus2nd
of the Catholic University of America provided it with a good historical grounding. It has, however, other independent supporters. For this position, which I have principally adopted in this present work, the validity of metaphysics depends on two conditions:
