Hi guys, I’m new here and I’ve been reading the whole thread, and I’d just like to give my humble opinion on the matter.
First of all, I have to respectfully disagree with the OP in that I don’t think that a finite universe necessarily proves the existence of God. I think this is what Aquinas also suggests (correct me if I’m wrong) because he thought that it was possible that the universe could have had no beginning and no end but still be created by God. That is to say, God could have simply created an eternal universe. Aquinas illustrates this in Aristotle’s example of how a foot eternally buried in the sand would also “eternally” cause a footprint. The foot’s pressure on the sand eternally causes the footprint but since the setting is precisely eternal (literally no time) then there is no beginning nor end. Thus the foot cannot be said to exist “before” the footprint, nor was there any actual point where the foot “began” to create the footprint. Also, I think Hindu religion attests as well as to how an infinite world does not preclude the existence of God since Hinduism generally believes that the universe is indeed infinite, being an endless cycle of reincarnation without beginning or end. And yet, Hindus do believe in a superior being or reality (Brahman) that causes this cyclical world. This is because, as I understand it, causation ultimately is not bound up with time. Thus A is the cause of B, but that does not necessarily mean that A existed “before” B.
Another main question in this thread appears to be why the Prime Mover has to be God, as understood in the Christian sense. Why can’t it be dark matter? Or chance? Well I think I can give an answer, but it is no means the final word on it. First of all, I don’t think Aquinas aimed to show the Christian God is real using the five ways. He simply used it to demonstrate the existence of God in general. I think the question as to why the Christian God is the real God is another topic in itself. But still, I think Aquinas took it for granted that when people spoke of God, they mean an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent (along with all the other superlatives haha) being that has a mind and a will. This is because he was living in an environment where the religions of the day (Christianity, Islam, Judaism) generally identified God as such. So I think a more precise wording of the question is why does the PM have to be the God as generally understood by these monotheistic religions, and not just Christianity.
Now I think the OP already answered this question, but I hope I can clarify a little. The PM has to have such attributes of omniscience, omnipotence, will, mind etc, because to be the PM you have to be Pure Act having no potentiality. What does this mean? It means the PM can’t have the potential to “become” something else that it wasn’t before. Because if it still had potential, then it could be “moved” as it were, and thus it wouldn’t be the First or Prime Mover. So, for example, the PM can’t have the potential to become “smarter” because this means that it has the possibility of being moved. If it has still potential to become smarter, then the PM can, say, read a book containing precisely the things that it doesn’t know and thus actualizing the potential of being smart that it had. But in that case, it would be “moved” by the book from potentially being smarter to actually being smarter. But this can’t be since it is supposed to be the PM, which cannot be moved. Thus the PM must actualize all potentialities. It must have qualities (I don’t know if that’s the right word) to an infinite degree. So infinite knowledge, power, goodness and so forth. Needless to say, the PM can’t be inanimate or without a mind or will as well since having life, a mind and a will is a possible actuality. It must have these also to an infinite degree. Furthermore this also implies that there can only be one PM because if there were two or more, then they would have potentiality. That is to say, they would have potential to precisely become each other.
Now you may ask, “Well if that is the case, can’t the PM also actualize evil in an infinite degree?” In other words, why does the PM have to be infinitely good instead of infinitely evil? Well the answer would be that evil is not something that is “actualized” properly speaking. As classic Christian metaphysics states, evil is a privation, it is a “lack of something”. As Saint Augustine implies, it is like a parasite that clings to goodness but in itself has no substance. So in a nutshell you can’t actualize a lack. That is also why God can’t create evil, because, in a way, it is not a “thing” to be created. This of course doesn’t mean that evil is not real or is just an illusion, but that’s another topic.
Well I guess that’s it. Sorry for the long post. I do apologize for any mistakes, especially if it contradicts what our Catholic faith teaches. Please correct them accordingly. Thanks!
