My analysis of the First Way

[Matthias123]

aquinasonline.com/Topics/firstway-assess.pdf

In a debate with someone I responded to the claim that the First Way is flawed. The above pdf is bascially what I responded to. Would anyone care to review my analysis, and tell me if I am correct or not?

The link I posted is not this person’s paper:

The first paper I wrote was about Aquinas’s five ways and how easily defiable they are. I encourage you net to use his arguments to support your claims.

My response:

This I find highly unlikely. Antony Kenny, the famous expert on medieval philosophy, known as the “Analytic” Thomist wrote extensively on the five ways, and asserted that they in fact were flawed. The reason he came to this conclusion is he fell into the error that Thomas Aquinas warned in the beginning of De ente et essentia. He rejected the Thomistic theory of being because he said Thomas failed to connect the different types of beings into one unified theory. Antony Kenny ultimately failed to dethrone Thomas’s theory of being, and therefore we do not recognize the conclusions he come to as valid. As without the Thomistic understanding of beings the proofs fail, not due to the fault of the proofs, but due to the fact that one starts their reasoning with an error.

The problem today with the First way in Summa Theologica, is it is not easily compatible with modern theoretical physics. This is not because the First way is faulty, but because it modern physics operates on mechanism. Physics is operating on a flawed understanding of being, in order to gain more specific knowledge of beings in reality. The reason for this is that the Scholastics of the 17th century abused the idea of the substantial form, by explaining any new phenomenon by assigning it yet another accidental property. Thus the old joke “The poppy makes the man sleep because it has the sleep inducing property” becomes apparent.

Therefore the new philosophers, in response to the legitimate problems with the substantial form at the time, attacked the notion with great success. The response of the Aristotelian philosophers was to further physicalize the substantial form thus preventing from acting as a formal cause, which was the reason it was postulated in the first place. They asserted they could describe things much better with mechanism, and there was no need for the substantial form. This was true, they could explain the specifics much better, but mechanism wrought its own ruin when it claimed it could explain all of objective reality. Since then there have been some developments, as mechanism came under attack at the beginning of the 20th century. One of the main objections was that if a particle could move from A to B, then it should also sometimes move from B to A. Therefore you should, in some isolated circumstances see causality going backwards – the idea of a man being killed by a gunshot before the assailant pulled the trigger is absurd. The substantial form in contrast does not suffer from this difficulty because the are immutable. Also according to the mechanists the particle per se, was indestructible. With the advent of advanced particle physics, we know this to be completely false. We know that the smallest elementary particle is a quark, and we also know they it are not indestructible. So therefore if the quark can be destroyed, we need to explain this destruction. The substantial form would be able to explain such a phenomenon, as we can describe it as the destruction of the substantial form of the substance (quark). Or even if you are a fan of M-Theory, that postulates the existence of “Strings”, which are one dimensional bisects of two dimensional objects vibrating in 11th dimensional space – you are still faced with the reality that the strings are not indestructible… Read More

Now because modern physics operates on methodological mechanism (which it should, because it is the best method for explaining specific characteristics of matter), it becomes hard to use the First way, because modern physics does not have the concept of formal causality. As you must know, Aristotelian motion is the process of the efficient cause imposing a formal cause on a material cause to obtain a final cause. Now when you take out the formal cause, the proof does not work as intended. Next this brings as back to the issue of being, because Thomas described being per se as the fusion of the “act of existing” and essence”. So if you do not start with the proper understanding of being, you are going to error.

Now this was a valid critique that Anthony Kenny pointed out – Aristotelian motion is problematic in modern physics. Now this doesn’t mean either one of them is flawed, it just means that there are issues.

Other then this, I don’t really know what you could say about them. They do not even assume the Principle of Sufficient Reason. The only thing they assume is that something cannot come out of nothing. Now perhaps you pointed to the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics to prove that something does come out of nothing, for we can see that virtual particles appear seemingly out of nowhere in a vacuum. This however would be false because what they are doing is quantum tunnelling from quantum nothingness into our universe. This “quantum nothingness” is often mistaken for metaphysical nothingness. Now this is not the case – although this is the greatest nothing we can imagine, it is not “nothingness” per se. The first reason is that the laws of physics exist in this quantum nothingness. The second reason is that metaphysically “nothingness” per se cannot exist, because it is a metaphysical evil. If nothing existed, then something would exist, and that something would be nothing. So we must come to the conclusion that what the particle physics are talking about when they say “tunnelling” from nothing, is really tunnelling from something to something else.

 

[Matthias123]

Next the First way was reasserted in a more complex form by Aristotelian philosopher Mortimer J. Adler in his 1981 book “How to Think About God”,

1. The existence of an effect requiring the concurrent existence and action of an efficient cause implies the existence and action of that cause
2. The cosmos as a whole exists
3. The existence of the cosmos as a whole is radically contingent (meaning that it needs an efficient cause of its continuing existence to preserve it in being, and prevent it from being annihilated, or reduced to nothing)
4. If the cosmos needs an efficient cause of its continuing existence, then that cause must be a supernatural being, supernatural in its action, and one the existence of which is uncaused, in other words, the Supreme Being, or God

Now the premise 1 and premise 4 are true beyond a doubt. What is debatable is premise three. In 2006 Dr. Alexander Vilenkin in the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem proves for certain that not only the universe has a beginning, but if there is a multiverse, it has a beginning too. He was not shy about the implications:

“It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it
takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning (Many Worlds in One [New York: Hill and Wang, 2006], p.176).” – Dr. Alexander Vilenkin
Now there can be some valid criticisms with the other proofs, but I cannot think of any fault you could have with them, unless you reject the Thomistic understand of being.

As Father Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P., who is called the greatest Thomist of the 20th century, and taught at the Pontifical University of Thomas Aquanis (Agelicum) from1906 to 1960, wrote in his master piece “Providence”:

“Already open to common sense, this proof may be further scrutinized by philosophical reason, but no fault can be found with it.

The greater cannot come from the less as from its wholly adequate, efficacious cause, for the additional perfection would itself then be without a cause, without a reason for its existence, and hence absolutely unintelligible. It is utterly absurd to maintain that the intelligence or the goodness of Jesus, of the great saints—of St. John, St. Paul, St. Augustine—are the result of unintelligent matter, of a material and blind fatality.”
The proof from the graduation among things established the existence of a pure actuality. Now coupling this argument with the First way, would establish a purely actual entity that is metaphysical necessary for the existence of the universe."

Now if you want logical necessity you are going to have to turn to perhaps the modal logic version of the ontological argument by Plantinga.

Basically what I am trying to say is that the argument is not breakable unless you have a flawed understanding of being. In addition I assert that if Antony Kenny couldn’t break the argument in a series of books, I doubt you broke it properly in a single paper.

 

[James_S_Saint]

Mattthias123,

Do you feel competent to uphold the step by step logic of “The First Way”?

I don’t debate people who merely quote other people.

 

[Matthias123]

Mattthias123,

Do you feel competent to uphold the step by step logic of “The First Way”?

I don’t debate people who merely quote other people.

I wrote what was in the quotes. I just quoted it so it didn’t look messy.

 

[James_S_Saint]

You have presented 2 forms of the issue, how about you prose one step at a time of whichever you feel most comfortable defending. In return I will agree or debate (usually after ensuring the meaning of words) with each step before worrying about the next.

In this way, we can make progress rather than create another useless diatribe of distractive confusions.

K?

 

[Matthias123]

My position is that the First Way is completely valid, but it is not as compelling as it once was, because the ontology modern physics is using does not allow the First Way to mesh with it. This is not due to a faut in physics,Thomistic ontology, or the First Way but an act of prudence, as mechanism works best in theoretical physics, and it is right that it is employed there. I make the claim that the ontology physics is operating on is in error, but it is using it in its method, because a non-erroneous ontology would not allow it to have the explanitory power that it needs to explain the universe. (It works on methodological mechanism)

 

[JDaniel]

Matthias123:
Matthias123:

Are you sure you are speaking of the First Way? Is not the First Way the argument for a Prime Mover? Were/are you aware that there are essentially two kinds of motion in this universe spoken of by Aquinas when constructing his argument? One concerns itself with an accidentally subordinated set of movers and moved things, and the other with an essentially subordinated set of movers and moved things?

Did you know that Aquinas was speaking of the second kind of motion when constructing his 1st Way?

I ask these questions because of the basic misunderstanding most people have trying to make sense of said argument. What we are most familiar with is the former, the “chain” of motion from accidentally subordinated standard motions we see most often. This kind of motion is very commonly placed in the stead of the latter, the essentially subordinated set. If the latter set, we’ll call it the ASM is used in place of the proper ESM, the arguments will never work. So, it’s important.

jd

 

[punkforchrist]

That’s a good analysis. I would stop short of saying that the First Way relies on the notion of “formal cause,” however. The Fifth Way makes use of each of the four Aristotelian causes, since the argument starts by necessitating some end (final cause) as originating in a purposeful mind as an idea (formal cause). Hence, via the Fifth Way, we come to the conclusion that the universe has a Designer.

The First Way, on the other hand, merely requires the use of efficient and material causation. As you say, something cannot come from nothing; and if there cannot be an infinite regress of movers, the series of moving things must be grounded in a First Mover. I like Anthony Kenny, but I think he’s simply mistaken in rejecting the First Way.

 

[punkforchrist]

Just to add onto what JDaniel has pointed out: we can offer some illustrations of accidentally-ordered causes and efficiently-ordered causes. We could start by pointing out that you have a grandfather. Now, this causal relationship is accidentally-ordered, since you do not currently rely on his actuality in order for you to continue existing. This kind of regress Thomas says can be infinite (I disagree with him, but we can grant this). An efficiently-ordered series of causes would be something like your dependence on the air you breathe. My preferred example is the motion of the gears in a watch. Each of the gears’ motion is dependent on the causation of motion found in the spring. If at any point the spring is removed, the efficiently-ordered series is likewise removed, and so the motion of the gears as a whole will stop.

 

[Matthias123]

Yes JDaniel I understand. The problem is that as far as I know the distinction of an essential series of efficient causes and an accidential serries of efficient causes doesn’t exist in mechanism – which is a dificulty in applying it to modern physics.

In mechanism, the change of A to B is caused by a change in the locality/ amount of particles. Therefore an essential cause is an accidental cause, under mechanism.

For our understanding, the essential change is a substantial change. The change from A to B comes when them the form of A changes to the form of B. As for locality, the idea that it would effect the essence of A would be like saying that the movement of all the humans in the United Kingdom to India would change the essence of humanity.

What I am saying is that physics operated this way as a method, and if we extend this method to all of objective reality it fails. Remember science presuposes naturalism, so it is not going to be using formal causality any time soon. Therefore the First Way is still valid but it cannot mesh with physics at this time. I bet this is the reason that William Lane Craig decided to use the Kalam Cosmological argument instead of the First Way.

The temptation here is to claim that physics can disprove the substatial form, but that would be the superstition of scientism. Science has no right to intrude on the spiritual domain…

 

[Matthias123]

I didn’t see your first post punkofchrist. Can you explain to me why it doesn’t rely on the formal casue?

 

[kk23wong]

“Supernatural” illustrated our imagination (It somehow becomes the source of various superstition.) to BREAK the natural rules (i.e. Birth, Growth - alive - and Death). It is an abnormal way of thinking and getting closer to FICTIONAL STORIES.

Quotations DO NOT necessarily equal to FACTUAL analysis. They are not primary sources of the FACTS.

A single line can kill a lie (even if it is a careless – conceptual – mistake). A book versus a paper? A single line can do. Papers are useless unless they contributed to our civilizations. Make them useful. Make Philosophy REAL.

“Subordinate changes” are similarities of lives (even they are in different levels). Cohesiveness of a living entity.

One again, “BIG BANG” failed. The ORIGIN of lives is a process of birth. The observation of a birth to any living object (i.e. a planet) is not the origin of our universe. Time is linear. A hypothesis of the ORIGIN by observations in a limited time of our space and we cannot turn the CLOCK back. A scientific theory must be based on natural rules since we are already inside the system when we were born. The MOST reliable source is the data we collected from the Earth instead of long distanced observation of our space. They can be a supplementary force.

A wrong direction cannot lead us all the way down to an answer. You can illustrate a number by Languages or Mathematics.
However, most of us are going too far. The TRUTH cannot be bounded by any academic subject. We divided them, but NEVER ever make the puzzles again.

Everyone can be a philosopher. Not everyone can become a thinker.
(Saints are Saints because they love you – all of us.)
**
Philosophy MUST be Real.

Teru Wong

 

[JDaniel]

Yes JDaniel I understand. The problem is that as far as I know the distinction of an essential series of efficient causes and an accidental series of efficient causes doesn’t exist in mechanism – which is a difficulty in applying it to modern physics.

Matthias123:

But you must see that the operative word is subordinated. Why did you leave that word out in your reiteration(s) of my post?

There is no problem with regard to modern mechanism if the argument is understood as Aquinas said it. The only possible problem is that of QM, of nano-particles. It is contended that, when observed at the nano-level, there is no “simultaneity” of the essentially subordinated efficient causes, as there is an ever-so-slight non-simultaneity amongst the nano-particles. In other words, let us say that the arm swinging the hammer is simultaneous with the hammer. Nano-physics is (perhaps) saying that there exists a “chain” of nano-events, in the arm, that remove simultaneity from the action. Therefore, Aquinas’ first two ways are debunked.

Let’s think about that for a moment. How does one really know that that is true. As an assumption, it has some validity, but, not enough to push said assumption to the level of a defeater. It’s an assumption based upon one theory of nanoparticulate motion. If you want to get a bit more into this, we can, but, I have to go to bed now as I have to rise and shine very early tomorrow morning.

I’ll respond to anything you post as soon as possible tomorrow. For now, go with God; I will pray that He watches over us all tonight.

jd

 

[Matthias123]

kk3wong, are you the person who said God was a planet? Or was that another person? I seem to remember you…

In all honesty I never know what you are talking about…no offence. I start reading, and I start saying “yeah this makes a bit of sense” then all of a sudden you say something wierd and I think “uhh…ok, I don’t know where he is going here”. You are from the philosphical traditions from China and the surrounding areas?

 

[Matthias123]

Matthias123:

But you must see that the operative word is subordinated. Why did you leave that word out in your reiteration(s) of my post?

There is no problem with regard to modern mechanism if the argument is understood as Aquinas said it. The only possible problem is that of QM, of nano-particles. It is contended that, when observed at the nano-level, there is no “simultaneity” of the essentially subordinated efficient causes, as there is an ever-so-slight non-simultaneity amongst the nano-particles. In other words, let us say that the arm swinging the hammer is simultaneous with the hammer. Nano-physics is (perhaps) saying that there exists a “chain” of nano-events, in the arm, that remove simultaneity from the action. Therefore, Aquinas’ first two ways are debunked.

Let’s think about that for a moment. How does one really know that that is true. As an assumption, it has some validity, but, not enough to push said assumption to the level of a defeater. It’s an assumption based upon one theory of nanoparticulate motion. If you want to get a bit more into this, we can, but, I have to go to bed now as I have to rise and shine very early tomorrow morning.

I’ll respond to anything you post as soon as possible tomorrow. For now, go with God; I will pray that He watches over us all tonight.

jd

But you must see that the operative word is subordinated. Why did you leave that word out in your reiteration(s) of my post?

I seem have overlooked it becasue I did’n’t know what you meant. Mea culpa

That is very interesting JD – I confess that I am in error – do you know where I can find additional reading material that might be able to help me understand?

 

[kk23wong]

kk3wong, are you the person who said God was a planet? Or was that another person? I seem to remember you…

In all honesty I never know what you are talking about…no offence. I start reading, and I start saying “yeah this makes a bit of sense” then all of a sudden you say something wierd and I think “uhh…ok, I don’t know where he is going here”. You are from the philosphical traditions from China and the surrounding areas?

Boundaries have misled scientists.
Boundaries are not even a cause for philosophy.
Boundaries INSIDE a planet are nothing more then DIVISONS.

From when, we divided ourselves?
From when, we THINK without reasoning?
From when, we have become an imaginary figures in history?

Philosophy must be REAL.
Philosophy on the Earth.
Philosophy of humankind.

Teru Wong

 

[warpspeedpetey]

aquinasonline.com/Topics/firstway-assess.pdf

In a debate with someone I responded to the claim that the First Way is flawed. The above pdf is bascially what I responded to. Would anyone care to review my analysis, and tell me if I am correct or not?

The link I posted is not this person’s paper:

My response:

i am continually amazed by the number of the “scientifically” minded with few critical thinking skills. those who think that Aquinas is easily dismissed on some scientific basis tend to miss the ontological ramifications of what he is saying. as you say here they have a flawed sense of “being”.

 

[kk23wong]

i am continually amazed by the number of the “scientifically” minded with few critical thinking skills. those who think that Aquinas is easily dismissed on some scientific basis tend to miss the ontological ramifications of what he is saying. as you say here they have a flawed sense of “being”.

*Future of Philosophy *exists in our minds. Dismiss the “dreams”.
Dreams are dreams even we discuss about them.
Philosophy MUST be REAL.

How about “a Conscious Earth”?

Teru Wong

 

[wanstronian]

i am continually amazed by the number of the “scientifically” minded with few critical thinking skills. those who think that Aquinas is easily dismissed on some scientific basis tend to miss the ontological ramifications of what he is saying. as you say here they have a flawed sense of “being”.

Could you explain the ‘ontological ramifications’ as you understand them, and also explain why they supercede the established scientific bases for dismissal?

 

[Matthias123]

Could you explain the ‘ontological ramifications’ as you understand them, and also explain why they supercede the established scientific bases for dismissal?

There are no scientific grounds for dismissal in this case because we are not talking about science, we are talking about metaphysics. The ineterpretation of science depends on one’s metaphysical view. The person who thinks that the substance of “particle” is made out of mater and form, is going to come to different conclusions to those that say that the particle is just matter.

Basically, physics are physical theories of how the unvierse works – as soon as they start commenting on the spiritual, we move out of science and into scientism.