First Mover Argument: How to Prove It?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ApostolicClementines
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Yes, actually you do.

The impossibility of an infinite regress of movers is the point of the First Mover argument.

Also “posit the existence of that which is necessary and explain why that explanation is required in order to explain the existence of that which is not necessary.” is (at least the start of) an argument against an infinite regress.
 
Rhubarb said:
The impossibility of an infinite regress of movers is the point of the First Mover argument.
Click to expand...
If you are talking about Aquinas’ first mover argument then you are mistaken. The whole argument stands on the fact that an infinite regress is irrelevant to the necessity of a first-mover (not to be mistaken for a temporal first mover). In other-words it is irrelevant whether an infinite regress exists or not because even an infinite regress doesn’t hold within it an sufficient explanation for why motion exists at all. In other-words all the movers in an infinite regress are by definition “intermediary causes” of motion and not the cause of the existence of motion itself since each mover in the series is being moved in order to be a cause.

The idea that we have to disprove the existence of an infinite regress in order to posit the existence of an unmoved first mover is a false dilemma and is usually based a straw-man of Aquinas’ first mover argument and not on his actual metaphysics.
 
Last edited:
I would add that according to science time is not infinite, time is defined as change… if you follow the current scientific theories, the universe will eventually stop expanding, all stars and planets will die all will be dust that stops moving… when everything stops moving there is no change from one moment to the next therefore there is no time anymore
 
Do you think that a single moment has ever passed that was not created by God?
 
Prodigal_Son said:
Why couldn’t an action taken outside of time manifest itself in time – and indeed at different moments in time – a little bit like the light from Alpha Centauri strikes Earth and Pluto at different moments?
Click to expand...
What causes the action to move from “outside time” to “inside time”. That is a change; what causes that change?

Your light from Alpha Centauri is always inside time, so that is not a problem in your example.

rossum
 
rossum said:
What causes the action to move from “outside time” to “inside time”. That is a change; what causes that change?
Click to expand...
The one singular entry of God’s action into time. It effects all things and all times. It is one cause from His perspective, but millions of effects from ours. It is an event caused by God, but it is not a change in God.
 
IWantGod said:
If you are talking about Aquinas’ first mover argument then you are mistaken. The whole argument stands on the fact that an infinite regress is irrelevant to the necessity of a first-mover (not to be mistaken for a temporal first mover). In other-words it is irrelevant whether an infinite regress exists or not because even an infinite regress doesn’t hold within it an sufficient explanation for why motion exists at all. In other-words all the movers in an infinite regress are by definition “intermediary causes” of motion and not the cause of the existence of motion itself since each mover in the series is being moved in order to be a cause.
Click to expand...
A good image for this is gears, I think. There must be a gear that is responsible for the motion in the other gears, even if the other gears have always been moving, because there must be a sufficient reason for those gears moving. The only twist is that the gear that initiates motion is unmoved itself – the unmoved mover. Why needn’t we explain its motion? That’s the dicey part, but some handwaving about how it is necessarily in existence is a good start.
 
Last edited:
Prodigal_Son said:
handwaving
Click to expand...
Hand waving is a pejorative term in philosophical debates. Did you intend this?

I like your analogy by the way, the only thing i would say is that a first mover would not be moving at all in a temporal sense. This is the part i think that an atheist might have hangups on because he will be trying to understand how it can be a cause given his experience of normal everyday causality. This does not refute the necessity of a first mover of course, but i would continue to argue that one would have to posit an intellect of pure-actuality as the first mover in-order to be effective. This may appear unusual to the atheist, and of course one would have to spend time explaining what pure-actuality is. But the argument is still solid because there is no possibility of a natural cause…
 
Last edited:
IWantGod said:
Hand waving is a pejorative term in philosophical debates. Did you intend this?
Click to expand...
I didn’t mean it as pejorative, but I did mean it to suggest incompleteness. I like when philosophers are straightforward and honest about their lack of thoroughness – cause sometimes it’s not worth the time to make the argument failsafe.

And as far as proofs of God’s existence, I don’t think there are any proofs that are ultimately convincing. Some of the proofs can help us understand who God is, or what the nature of the universe is, but ultimately they can never demonstrate God’s existence, since it’s quite possible to deny many of the premises used in these arguments.
 
Yes, really. Aquinas says in the First Way that we experience movement all around us., that things move when moved, and that chain can’t go back to infinity. That IS the regress problem, which is why a First Mover is necessary.

The Second Way also turns on the impossibility of an infinite regress, just with causes, not movements/change. The way you described it still has the infinite regress problem built in. As you said " In other-words all the movers in an infinite regress are by definition “intermediary causes” of motion and not the cause of the existence of motion itself since each mover in the series is being moved in order to be a cause." This is the regress problem. A bunch of intermediary causes, and no necessary cause. A bunch of intermediary causes would be the infinite regress - which Aquinas thought was impossible.

So the first step in demonstrating the First and Second way is to establish the impossibility of an infinite regress (which some people do argue against) AND demonstrate that the necessary start of motion/change/causes can’t be the natural world.

Perhaps you were thinking of the Third Way - which has to do with necessary and contingent beings. That one doesn’t use a regress.
 
Last edited:
Prodigal_Son said:
God’s existence, since it’s quite possible to deny many of the premises used in these arguments.
Click to expand...
Aquinas’s five ways as originally stated are not my go to argument. But to be honest i am yet to see the first mover argument refuted. You say its possible to deny any of the premises, can you explain?
 
IWantGod said:
Aquinas’s five ways as originally stated are not my go to argument. But to be honest i am yet to see the first mover argument refuted. You say its possible to deny any of the premises, can you explain?
Click to expand...
I said it is possible to deny MANY of the premises in various arguments for God’s existence. I don’t know what you mean by the first mover argument – is this the second or third way? I find that most of the cosmological arguments fail to prove that the first cause or necessary being isn’t just the universe. Why couldn’t the universe itself be the necessary being, if one is to insist that a necessary being is possible? Or perhaps another way of putting this is to ask why the first cause must be intelligent.

But if you want a specific response to a specific argument, please put forward the argument, and I will respond.
 
Prodigal_Son said:
Or perhaps another way of putting this is to ask why the first cause must be intelligent.
Click to expand...
Aquinas essentially argues that physical reality is governed by rules that it is not the cause of. Since physical reality is changing and is therefore not comprised of that which is necessarily actual, it is therefore not necessary reality. Therefore that which is necessary reality would have to create those rules… Therefore since these rules of natural physical behavior cannot arise naturally, the behavior of physical beings would have to be governed by an intellect.
 
Last edited:
Okay, explain to me what is wrong with the unmoved mover argument.
 
IWantGod said:
Aquinas essentially argues that physical reality is governed by rules that it is not the cause of. Since physical reality is changing and is therefore not comprised of that which is necessarily actual as opposed to potentially actually, it is not necessary reality. Therefore that which is necessary reality would have to create those rules… Therefore since these rules of natural physical behavior cannot arise naturally, the behavior of physical beings would have to be governed by an intellect.
Click to expand...
Doesn’t this assume that all sufficiently explanatory causes must be necessary causes? Why can’t we have contingent causes ad infinitum? (I think the necessary cause is a BETTER explanation, but nothing prevents a person from denying the necessary cause route.)
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top