Edward Feser's Unmoved Mover, or Once Moved Mover?

[Christbearer98]

I’m sure there’s about a thousand “unmoved mover” questions here but I’m looking for a very specific answer to a very specific question about Dr. Edward Feser’s Unmoved Mover argument he explains in his books so I ask the people here to take a gander.

It seems to me like we don’t need an Unmoved Mover in terms of simultaneous causation. My thought is this. Let’s take the example of an indent in a pile of leaves. The indent is actualized by a rock. But once the rock is placed there, the thing that actualized the rock’s location does not need to continue being there. Similarly, if we say the existence of a cup of tea depends upon the water existing, which depends upon h2O existing, which depends upon atoms existing, and matter depends on form to actualize it, etc. But what if the matter was actualized and just remained that way? Wouldn’t this end the regress of simultaneous movers and then there would continue a regress of sequential movers which Aquinas explicitly does not argue must be finite?

Let me know if that makes sense. Thank you all in advanced.

 

[IWantGod]

But what if the matter was actualized and just remained that way?

But what actualized matter? What moved the once-moved-mover?

Am i understanding you right?

 

[Gabika50]

I was st once moved by your question and tried to push somebody bigger than myself; he did not budge, so he was the unmoved one. But eventually he moved and was a once moved mover. Was he moved by me? Perhaps; then he moved once more. Therefore unmoved mover and once moved mover became one and the same.

 

[AlNg]

I guess the question is what maintains our present being in existence?

 

[Christbearer98]

I recently discovered a similar thread which asked this question more clearly, and then I reread some of the literature I own and saw the answer there. So to me it’s solved thank you