Aquinas, Logic & The First Cause. (Thread 1)

[JDaniel]

I confess that I have not read every post on this thread, but I have the distinct impression that the argument here is about whether a causal regress can go backward through time infinitely, and that St. Thomas’ prima via and secunda via somehow depend upon such a regress being impossible in order for them to conclude validly to a First Mover and First Cause. If my impression is wrong, please correct me.

If anyone is thinking of a causal regress backward through time in St. Thomas’ arguments, they misunderstand a fundamental element of the Ways. The causal regress described here is atemporal. Cause and effect are always simultaneous. That is why St. Thomas says that to take away the cause is to take away the effect. The causal regress is one in which all causes and effects are simultaneous. It does not go back in time. In fact, the tertia via presupposes an eternal world, based on the argument from Moses Maemonides. In fact, in his De Aeternitate Mundi, St. Thomas argues that it is not logically impossible that the world be eternal, and that the truth that the world had a beginning in time is not a philosophical truth, but an article of Catholic faith. After all, if God exists from all eternity, what is to prevent Him from having been creating the world from all eternity as well?

Interesting, but, if God were to have been “creating the world from from all eternity,” then He would be in simultaneity with time. Time, then, would be in God and God in time. But, this cannot be. God is atemporal. The world is temporal. An eternal world can have a beginning and go forward eternally, but, not be simultaneous with God.

From a review of the real world, it is easy to see that this world could be utterly destroyed tomorrow. All life forms devastated. Now, the matter might remain, but, in pieces. One large meteor strike. This world is one of the pins on a bowling lane.

Respectfully,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

But you do not accept that a series of events *ad infinitum *(if those events are in the past) is even theoretically possible, correct? Or have I misunderstood?

I am not sure what you mean by “theoretically possible”. Could you expand on that?

jd

 

[Katholish]

I am not sure what you mean by “theoretically possible”. Could you expand on that?

jd

I mean that while we know it didn’t happen that way, it would have been possible.

 

[JDaniel]

I mean that while we know it didn’t happen that way, it would have been possible.

Theory is what mathematicians play with. Augmenting, and amending the meanings of words for the games’ purposes is part of its “rationality”. So, from the aspect of “theory” alone, anything can be concocted.

But, if you’re asking whether or not we can postulate an infinite chain of causes “in [real] time”, my answer is “No.”

jd

 

[Dr.Bonnette]

Quote:<Interesting, but, if God were to have been “creating the world from from all eternity,” then He would be in simultaneity with time. Time, then, would be in God and God in time. But, this cannot be. God is atemporal. The world is temporal. An eternal world can have a beginning and go forward eternally, but, not be simultaneous with God.

From a review of the real world, it is easy to see that this world could be utterly destroyed tomorrow. All life forms devastated. Now, the matter might remain, but, in pieces. One large meteor strike. This world is one of the pins on a bowling lane.>

I wish someone would fix the word “cause” in this thread’s title!

We have a problem using human language to describe the relation between time and eternity. Time is the measure of motion in reference to before and after. It is a property of created physical being. The very word, “simultaneous,” is used analogically, and is misleading if read univocally. It means, literally, “at the same time.” God is not in time, nor at the same time, as His physical creation. He is simply outside of time altogether. Eternity is, properly speaking, the name for the “simultaneous” and complete possession of infinite life. God is not the Alpha becoming the Omega. He IS the Alpha AND Omega. Thus, to think of God as sort of “sitting there” for endless duration is a basic error. We speak of an “eternal” world, but that is to apply to physical creation a term proper only to God. Rather, what we really mean is “endless duration,” an endless passage of time with no beginning or end. It is entirely conceivable that God, existing from all eternity (which entails no change at all in Him), has willed that the physical creation should exist without any temporal beginning. This does not make the world “eternal,” but infinite with respect to duration in time only (and only with respect to going back in time). We know by Catholic faith that the world had a temporal beginning, but this is not a demand of metaphysical necessity. If the physical sciences seem to indicate a temporal beginning, well and good. But that is a distinct discipline from either philosophy or theology.

Incidentally, while a cosmic collision might destroy Earth, that would not destroy “the world.” The “world” is usually taken, in philosophy and theology, to mean all of physical creation.

 

[JDaniel]

Quote:<Interesting, but, if God were to have been “creating the world from from all eternity,” then He would be in simultaneity with time. Time, then, would be in God and God in time. But, this cannot be. God is atemporal. The world is temporal. An eternal world can have a beginning and go forward eternally, but, not be simultaneous with God.

From a review of the real world, it is easy to see that this world could be utterly destroyed tomorrow. All life forms devastated. Now, the matter might remain, but, in pieces. One large meteor strike. This world is one of the pins on a bowling lane.>

I wish someone would fix the word “cause” in this thread’s title!

We have a problem using human language to describe the relation between time and eternity. Time is the measure of motion in reference to before and after. It is a property of created physical being. The very word, “simultaneous,” is used analogically, and is misleading if read univocally. It means, literally, “at the same time.” God is not in time, nor at the same time, as His physical creation. He is simply outside of time altogether. Eternity is, properly speaking, the name for the “simultaneous” and complete possession of infinite life. God is not the Alpha becoming the Omega. He IS the Alpha AND Omega. Thus, to think of God as sort of “sitting there” for endless duration is a basic error. We speak of an “eternal” world, but that is to apply to physical creation a term proper only to God. Rather, what we really mean is “endless duration,” an endless passage of time with no beginning or end. It is entirely conceivable that God, existing from all eternity (which entails no change at all in Him), has willed that the physical creation should exist without any temporal beginning. This does not make the world “eternal,” but infinite with respect to duration in time only (and only with respect to going back in time). We know by Catholic faith that the world had a temporal beginning, but this is not a demand of metaphysical necessity. If the physical sciences seem to indicate a temporal beginning, well and good. But that is a distinct discipline from either philosophy or theology.

Incidentally, while a cosmic collision might destroy Earth, that would not destroy “the world.” The “world” is usually taken, in philosophy and theology, to mean all of physical creation.

I see what you mean. You are right, our language does pose problems when trying to describe the relation of time and eternity. But, I did not originally assume “time” with respect to St. Thomas’ infinite regress of cause-effect events. I originally assumed an “infinity” of such events, as in physically actual real “numbers”. (Since you might have missed earlier posts, you are forgiven.) Then, when I read your post, I took your words to mean that you were, in some way, placing God and time together. I see that that was not at all your intent.

This is, and will continue to be, the problem for most people:

"Thus, to think of God as sort of “sitting there” for endless duration is a basic error. We speak of an “eternal” world, but that is to apply to physical creation a term proper only to God. Rather, what we really mean is “endless duration,”

The word “eternal” has been used so as to mean “endless duration” so much that to suggest otherwise disengages those who look to the ways to inspire them to conversion. Each time this argument comes up, in the future, we have just added a whole new chapter to the argument just to hope to get concurrence as to meaning.

“This does not make the world “eternal,” but infinite with respect to duration in time only (and only with respect to going back in time)”

The above leads me to another problem, or, question, with your analysis: it is improper to the understanding of the word “infinite” to postulate a meaning of it to time, whether in arrears or not. If you mean “potentially” infinite, then I have no problem. If you mean literally infinite, then I think this mis-uses the word.

jd

 

[Sair]

*"In order to avoid the problem of the Universe being an uncaused cause some say that god has always existed and has therefore never been created: It therefore needs no cause. But I find this is an argument that can be used in conjunction with big bang theory to prove, again, that god is not likely to exist as a first cause. Because according to some Big Bang theories there has been an infinite number of cycles of Big Bang / Big Crunch (where the Universe ends in a big black hole after contracting) and that the Universe has existed forever. If it is possible for something to exist forever and not need a cause then it is likely to be the Universe, not God, and once again we can theorize that this is likely to be true because there would be no reason for god if it was true that something could exist with no cause.

Big Bang models describe the creation of all the dimensions of space including time itself, so that to ask “what happened before the big bang?” is meaningless in the same way as asking “what was god doing before it created time?”."*

I have posted the above directly from the following website:
vexen.co.uk/religion/universe.html

…just because I remain curious as to how one actually proves the existence of God, without any subjective interference?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

"In order to avoid the problem of the Universe being an uncaused cause some say that god has always existed and has therefore never been created: It therefore needs no cause. But I find this is an argument that can be used in conjunction with big bang theory to prove, again, that god is not likely to exist as a first cause. Because according to some Big Bang theories there has been an infinite number of cycles of Big Bang / Big Crunch (where the Universe ends in a big black hole after contracting) and that the Universe has existed forever. If it is possible for something to exist forever and not need a cause then it is likely to be the Universe, not God, and once again we can theorize that this is likely to be true because there would be no reason for god if it was true that something could exist with no cause.

Well, I see Bertrand Russell is still speaking from his grave.

If I could remodel the cosmological argument (not trying to upstage Aquinas), I would have said that just as everything in the universe has a cause, it is reasonable to suppose that the universe, following the example of all its parts, also has a cause. And when the objection is raised, as Bertrand Russell and you raise it, that if everything has a cause, then why doesn’t the first cause have a cause, I would answer that the first cause (God) does not have to have a cause because He created (rather than caused) not only the universe, but also the principle of causality that pervades the universe. Having created the principle of causality as we know it, He is not subject to any principle of His own creation. That is to say, He cannot be caused because He is outside time and causality.

And if it were objected that the universe needn’t be caused just because everything in it is caused, I would ask how atheists are going to explain the problem they have been trying to get around ever since it surfaced … the Big Bang, which certainly suggests that Something or Someone created the universe, because there was no time, and therefore no causality, before the first second.

The notion of a Big Crunch has been discredited. That doesn’t mean atheists won’t continue looking for another out, such a Multiverses, which are also a fantasy without one iota of scientific proof. The usual atheist demand for proof that there is a God suddenly suddenly becomes no demand at all when he has to grasp for imaginary solutions that will negate Creation.

 

[Dr.Bonnette]

Dear JDaniel,

If I am wrong, please say so, but I think the one point you wanted to further clarify was the following:

“The above leads me to another problem, or, question, with your analysis: it is improper to the understanding of the word “infinite” to postulate a meaning of it to time, whether in arrears or not. If you mean “potentially” infinite, then I have no problem. If you mean literally infinite, then I think this mis-uses the word.”

The word “infinite” seems to confuse people. Literally, it simply means “without limit.” Hence, it can be applied to any context in which no limit is present. Time, regressing without limit, may be called “infinite.” Time, going forward without limit, may be called “infinite.” Going both back and forward without limit is also “infinite” time. But time is a limited category of being by its very nature, since it applies only to the measure of motion in reference to before and after, and motion is the act of a being in potency insofar as it is in potency. When we say that God is the Infinite Being, we mean something totally other, although retaining the meaning of “without limit.” God’s infinity means that He possesses every possible perfection of being, but in a single, simple act of pure existence in which His very essence is “to exist.” Infinity here has no restrictive meaning at all. God is infinite in every respect and aspect. He is Eternity. He is the “simultaneous” and complete possession of unlimited Life and Perfection. Every created thing that demonstrates some aspect of “unlimitedness” can be called “infinite,” but in a totally limited manner. Thus even the ring on a finger is “infinite” in that it has no beginning and no end in reference to its circularity. But that does not make it God!

I have avoided the often confusing concept of “potential” infinity, such as St. Thomas uses in discussing accidental causality, as when a sculptor takes hammer after hammer to chisel the statue, with the succession of hammers being “potentially” infinite. In the question of infinite causal regress in the Quinque Viae, we are talking about a possible actually infinite multitude of essentially subordinated causes acting here and now together to produce some final effect here and now existing. The essential subject of my book, Aquinas’ Proofs for God’s Existence, was centered on the question of whether an infinite regress of essentially subordinated causes was possible in any order of causality: efficient, formal, material, or final. I conclude in the negative.

 

[morgantj]

If I could remodel the cosmological argument (not trying to upstage Aquinas), I would have said that just as everything in the universe has a cause, it is reasonable to suppose that the universe, following the example of all its parts, also has a cause. And when the objection is raised, as Bertrand Russell and you raise it, that if everything has a cause, then why doesn’t the first cause have a cause, I would answer that the first cause (God) does not have to have a cause because He created (rather than caused) not only the universe, but also the principle of causality that pervades the universe. Having created the principle of causality as we know it, He is not subject to any principle of His own creation. That is to say, He cannot be caused because He is outside time and causality.

If you claim that the first cause is outside of time and causality, isn’t it more probable that it was something much simpler and more natural than an aware, all-knowing (what is there to know before time?), supernatural, omnipotent, omniscent deity, a diety that can make things appear out of absolutely nothing? Hocus Pocus if I ever heard it.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

The origin of the universe is shrouded in mystery. There would be no way of imagining what that God was like without some revelation … and the Catholic Church has it all. Not that we can know all about God, but that He makes sure we know that He is without beginning and without end.

 

[morgantj]

The origin of the universe is shrouded in mystery. There would be no way of imagining what that God was like without some revelation … and the Catholic Church has it all. Not that we can know all about God, but that He makes sure we know that He is without beginning and without end.

Man wrote the bible. Anything we think we know about any one particular god, that information came from another man. Hearsay. Where are the revelations today? God only revealed himself to primitive man? If the people that wrote the bible were able to get all thier information without the bible, then why can’t we? Why is modern man so dependent on the bible for information about god, but man before the bible had all kinds of experiences with an intervening god. Where is the intervention today that can’t be explained by natural mean, by our current understanding of nature.

So you argument is that you know god is an uncaused cause and is without beginning and without end, because the bible tells you so?

 

[Dr.Bonnette]

Just a side comment on the proofs for God’s existence. While it is useful and illuminative to discuss various aspects of the proofs, such as how God can be the First Cause but is said to be uncaused Himself, the fact of the matter is that these proofs are more complex than they appear to readers who just pick up the Summa Theologiae, I, q. 2, a. 3, and read the short paragraphs contained therein. These “ways” are far too short for the task they seem to fulfill. They stand as the foundation for the entire Summa Theologiae, a four volume summary of all of Christian theology. Surely, the existence of God Himself, deserves greater treatment if His existence is the very foundation of all that follows in theology! In truth, these “ways” are but five short summaries of arguments well-known to St. Thomas’ students, who had already COMPLETED their study of philosophy. Each argument was originally posed by Aristotle and other major thinkers, such as Maimonides. These were merely St. Thomas’ “thumbnail” version of them. Properly treated, students need a full course in cosmology and metaphysics before beginning their study, perhaps epistemology as well. The proper exposition of them is given in the classical work by Pere Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange in his “God, His Existence, and His Nature,” two volumes, 1934. The first volume is dedicated to the Five Ways, and fully two-thirds of that volume deals with the first principles of metaphysics and epistemology before turning to the arguments themselves only in the last hundred or so pages of the text.

 

[Dr.Bonnette]

One of you just posting seems to have great problems with the entire subject of religion and revelation in relation to reason and science. Indeed, in presenting the Five Ways, St. Thomas raises two objections: one about the problem of evil, and a second about whether Nature itself is sufficient without God. The latter is the same objection raised by David Hume, as well as most other skeptics in modern times. The whole point of the Five Ways is to show that Nature unto itself is an insufficient, inadequate explanation of its own motion, causality, contingency, relative perfections, and finality. For those interested in pursuing some of the more interesting aspects of the contemporary clash between science and revelation – in the light of philosophical reason – I suggest you take a look at my own website: www.drbonnette.com Some of you may find especially useful the full article posted there on recent ape-language studies. I have often maintained that if a student cannot tell the difference between himself and a chimp, he ought not graduate from college. Many today ought not graduate.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Man wrote the bible.

Was inspired by God to write it. On his own, he could never have written it. I know you don’t accept that because you didn’t see God speaking to the writer.

Anything we think we know about any one particular god, that information came from another man. Hearsay.

You have been reading too much Thomas Paine.

Where are the revelations today?

Where they have always been … in the Bible. And also through the teachings of the Church.

God only revealed himself to primitive man?

Primitive? Yes, if you mean Adam and Eve. Yes again if you mean the Jews who followed Moses. Yes again if you mean Christians.

If the people that wrote the bible were able to get all thier information without the bible, then why can’t we?

God did not go to the trouble of giving us the Bible only to have us throw it away. Again, you seem to be weened on Thomas Paine’s Age of Reason. Am I right?

Why is modern man so dependent on the bible for information about god, but man before the bible had all kinds of experiences with an intervening god.

Not sure what your point is. Could you clarify? What intervening god(s) are you talking about?

Where is the intervention today that can’t be explained by natural mean, by our current understanding of nature.

Still not sure what you mean by “intervention.” Do you mean God intervening to grant miracles? Miracles are still being performed every day. You would not notice them. Catholics notice them every time they approach the altar. But no scientist could explain that one, though no doubt someone has put Him under a microscope and found no One to observe.

So you argument is that you know god is an uncaused cause and is without beginning and without end, because the bible tells you so?

Quite so. Without revelations we are lost. Unaided reason can go so far, such as in deducing a first cause or some kind of intelligent design; but to get to know God up close and personal requires that God connect with us in a very personal way. No god every presented himself more in person, or in a more personal way, than Jesus Christ.

I don’t think you can name any other god from history who taught that love is the greatest of commandments and then died for our sins to prove it.

 

[JDaniel]

Dear JDaniel,

If I am wrong, please say so, but I think the one point you wanted to further clarify was the following:

“The above leads me to another problem, or, question, with your analysis: it is improper to the understanding of the word “infinite” to postulate a meaning of it to time, whether in arrears or not. If you mean “potentially” infinite, then I have no problem. If you mean literally infinite, then I think this mis-uses the word.”

The following is from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

The infinite, as the word indicates, is that which has no end, no limit, no boundary, and therefore cannot be measured by a finite standard, however often applied; it is that which cannot be attained by successive addition, not exhausted by successive subtraction of finite quantities. Though in itself a negative term, infinity has a very positive meaning. Since it denies all bounds – which are themselves negations – it is a double negation, hence an affirmation, and expresses positively the highest unsurpassable reality. Like the concepts of quantity, limit, boundary, the term infinity applies primarily to space and time, but not exclusively, as Schopenhauer maintains.

The word “infinite” seems to confuse people. Literally, it simply means “without limit.”

Actually, it comes from the Latin “infinitas”, which literally means, “no end”. And, a bit less, literally, " no bounds". “No end” is different in perceptive color than “no limit”. I have heard that definition used to much chagrin as far as I am concerned. To say that an infinite has no limit, is akin to saying that it has no “boundaries”, but, that it might not keep going. Using that definition, one can envision a thing that has no edges, so to speak, plopped in some medium that is larger yet then the infinity. This cannot be. Nor can there exist multiple infinities.

In other words, if I were infinite, in nature, and could travel infinitely, I would never come to any end, or bounds. I would simply keep going without end. Or, if I were infinite, in nature, and able to count all real numbers, I would never stop counting. I would simply keep counting without end.

Hence, it can be applied to any context in which no limit is present. Time, regressing without limit, may be called “infinite.” Time, going forward without limit, may be called “infinite.” Going both back and forward without limit is also “infinite” time. But time is a limited category of being by its very nature, since it applies only to the measure of motion in reference to before and after, and motion is the act of a being in potency insofar as it is in potency.

As to its Division from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

The different kinds of infinity must be carefully distinguished. The two principal divisions are: (1) the infinite in only one respect (secundum quid

) or the partially infinite, and the infinite in every respect (simpliciter) or the absolutely infinite; (2) the actually infinite, and the potentially infinite, which is capable of an indefinite increase. Infinite in only one respect (viz. extension ) is ideal space; infinite in only one respect (viz. duration) is the immortal soul; infinite in every respect is that being alone, which contains in itself all possible perfections and which is above every species and genus and order. Potentially infinite is (e.g.) the path of a body which moves in free space; potentially infinite is also the duration of matter and energy, according to the law of their conservation. For this motion and this duration will never cease, and in this sense will be without end; nevertheless, the path and the duration up to this instant can be measured at any given point and are therefore in this sense finite. Hence they are infinite not according to what they actually are at a given moment, but according to what they are not yet and never actually can be; they are infinite in this, that they are ever and forever progressing without bounds, that there is always the “and so forth”. The actually infinite, however, is now and at every moment complete, absolute, entirely determined. The immeasurable omnipresent spirit does not advance from point to point without end, but is constantly everywhere, fills every “beyond” of every assignable point. Hegel calls potential infinity the improper (schlechte) , actual infinity the true infinity.

continued . . .

 

[JDaniel]

continuation . . . Part 2 of 2:

Hence, it can be applied to any context in which no limit is present. Time, regressing without limit, may be called “infinite.”

Not so. To say “Time, regressing without limit…” is an incorrect statement. It is precisely limited by this very present moment, as this is exactly the same as calling this moment an “end” of it. Saying the presupposes the “now”. We have now given it a limit. One can say, “ad infinitum”, but, even that is incorrect in that what is meant by it is a potential infinity.

Time, going forward without limit, may be called “infinite.”

Not so, for the same reason as above.

Going both back[ward] and forward without limit is **** “infinite” time.

I will agree on this one provisionally. That is, that we are not at a stopping point in it called “now.” There can be no now.

But time is a limited category of being by its very nature, since it applies only to the measure of motion in reference to before and after, and motion is the act of a being in potency insofar as it is in potency.

But, that is not the reason why time is a limited being; it is a limited being precisely because it exists at the will of God. In other words, at any point on the time line of time, He can obliterate all matter and all motion. And, even if you don’t wish to go so far to to say that He can obliterate all matter, He can, without any limitation stop time. The “world” would be at a motionless halt.

When we say that God is the Infinite Being, we mean something totally other, although retaining the meaning of “without limit.” God’s infinity means that He possesses every possible perfection of being, but in a single, simple act of pure existence in which His very essence is “to exist.” Infinity here has no restrictive meaning at all. God is infinite in every respect and aspect. He is Eternity. He is the “simultaneous” and complete possession of unlimited Life and Perfection.

This must then include the perfection that occludes all of space plus any and all external and internal voids, if any exist.

Every created thing that demonstrates some aspect of “unlimitedness” can be called “infinite,” but in a totally limited manner. Thus even the ring on a finger is “infinite” in that it has no beginning and no end in reference to its circularity. But that does not make it God!

I’m incompletely in agreement with the above.

I have avoided the often confusing concept of “potential” infinity, such as St. Thomas uses in discussing accidental causality, as when a sculptor takes hammer after hammer to chisel the statue, with the succession of hammers being “potentially” infinite.

You, my friend, are capable of doing that and fully understanding the circumstances. It is a difficult concept to convey.

In the question of infinite causal regress in the Quinque Viae, we are talking about a possible actually infinite multitude of essentially subordinated causes acting here and now together to produce some final effect here and now existing.

In the sense that time is not a part. This is how God would “see” it.

The essential subject of my book, Aquinas’ Proofs for God’s Existence, was centered on the question of whether an infinite regress of essentially subordinated causes was possible in any order of causality: efficient, formal, material, or final. I conclude in the negative.

I concur.

jd

 

[morgantj]

God did not go to the trouble of giving us the Bible only to have us throw it away. Again, you seem to be weened on Thomas Paine’s Age of Reason. Am I right?

I have not read Thomas Paine’s Age of Reason or had anything to do with it. Anyways, I doubt the bible or anything else would be any “trouble” for an omniscient omnipotent all-powerful deity that is claimed to have created our entire universe. A book curiously targeting a single species of life (humans) would be effortless for such a god. And that doesn’t answer my question, “If the people that wrote the bible were able to get all their information about god without the bible, then why are we unable to without the bible?”

 

[JDaniel]

I have not read Thomas Paine’s Age of Reason or had anything to do with it. Anyways, I doubt the bible or anything else would be any “trouble” for an omniscient omnipotent all-powerful deity that is claimed to have created our entire universe. A book curiously targeting a single species of life (humans) would be effortless for such a god. And that doesn’t answer my question, “If the people that wrote the bible were able to get all their information about god without the bible, then why are we unable to without the bible?”

Why so angry, Morgantj? Why so much hostility? We might look to ourselves if we can’t find Him. Perhaps the flaw is in us? In any event, we theists/deists outnumber you by 10-12 times. Have you ever wondered why? 4 billion to 400 million. Why?

jd

 

[punkforchrist]

Thomas Aquinas didn’t actually believe that we could prove the universe had a beginning, even though he believed it did. When Thomas is talking about the impossibility of an infinite regress, he’s talking about a hierarchical series. The argument goes like this:

1. Everything in motion is moved by another.
2. The series of movers either proceeds to infinity, or has a first mover.
3. The series cannot proceed to infinity.
4. Therefore, a first mover exists.

In (3), Thomas argues that there cannot be an infinite regress of movers, since they would have to be moving within a finite period of time; but, it would take infinite time for an infinite series of movers to move anything. Therefore, the series of movers must be finite, and have a first mover.

One might think of it like this. At any finite period of time, the human body is moved by organs, its organs by cells, its cells by molecules, and so forth. This is the “hierarchy” that cannot be infinite. As far as time is concerned, Thomas didn’t believe that an infinitely old universe was impossible. This was also Aristotle’s position, although the latter actually did believe the universe to be eternal. Thomas believed in a first moment of creation based on his acceptance of Holy Scripture.