Resources on the "argument from motion"

  • Thread starter Thread starter punkforchrist
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

punkforchrist

Guest
Hi, I’m a bit new to this forum. I’ve always been a fan of the kalam cosmological argument, especially as presented by William Lane Craig. But lately I’ve especially taken an interest in the Aristotelian/Thomistic “argument from motion.” I find it to be more of a minimalist argument than the kalam.

Does anyone know of any helpful resources on this proof, besides what can be found in Aquinas? I’m thinking of something that includes more than just a brief mention of its basic form.

Thanks!
 
punkforchrist said:
Hi, I’m a bit new to this forum. I’ve always been a fan of the kalam cosmological argument, especially as presented by William Lane Craig. But lately I’ve especially taken an interest in the Aristotelian/Thomistic “argument from motion.” I find it to be more of a minimalist argument than the kalam.

Does anyone know of any helpful resources on this proof, besides what can be found in Aquinas? I’m thinking of something that includes more than just a brief mention of its basic form.

Thanks!
Click to expand...
Have you read any Aristotle before?

The proof of the unmoved mover comes towards the end (book VII I think) of Aristotle’s Physics. That’s the text to examine if you want to know.

However, if you’ve never read any Aristotle before it can be a bit bewildering to go after. I’m, personally, part way through the Physics myself, right now. I haven’t reached the unmoved mover yet, though (although I have read the argument before, just not in context).

You can find the Physics online, for instance, here. Or, if you’d prefer to have a hard copy, then I recommend looking for Richard McKeon’s Basic Works of Aristotle which will get you quite a bang for your buck.

-Rob
 
Thanks, Rob. I’ve read Aristotle’s take on the Prime/Unmoved Mover, but it’s been awhile. I should probably take a look again to examine some of the subtleties of the argument.

Here’s my understanding of the argument (critiques are welcome!).
  1. We observe things that are in motion.
  2. Whatever is in motion is moved by another.
  3. This cannot go on to infinity.
  4. Therefore, there must be a Prime Mover, itself unmoved.
(1) and (2) seem obvious (a fuller discussion on quantum mechanics may arise, but quantum fluctuations are moved in the sense that they come from the physical properties of a quantum vacuum), so the key premise is (3).

Aristotle and Aquinas present a number of reasons for their contention that (3) is true, but I’ll just present one (please feel free to correct me if I’m wrong or missing anything): the impossibility of collecting an actual infinite by successive addition, also known as the impossibility of traversing the infinite. It can be formalized like this:
  1. An actually infinite quantity cannot be collected by successive addition.
  2. An infinite chain of movers is an actually infinite quantity collected by successive addition.
  3. Therefore, there cannot be an infinite chain of movers.
(2) appears indubitably true, so the key premise is (1). In support of this, it might be said that no matter how many movers are added, there will always be another mover needed before arriving at infinity. In order to arrive at the present state of motion, then, it would be analogous to counting down from infinity and ending in zero, which is impossible. And even if the present could arrive, a number of paradoxes (perhaps more accurately, contradictions) surface. Why, if an infinite chain of movers have brought about the present state of motion, did not the present state happen yesterday, or the day before, or at any point in the finite past (since by that time, an infinite chain of movers have likewise been in motion)?

I like Peter Kreeft’s analogy. Imagine I ask if I can borrow a book from you. You say you’ll first need to borrow it from a friend, and he tells you that he needs to borrow it from a friend, and so on ad infinitum. The question is, who actually has the book? It would further seem that I would never get the book, since before I could ever get it, another person would always have to lend it to another before it ever reached me.

So if (1), (2), and (3) are true, then (4) necessarily follows.

In any case, I’d like to further explore this proof if anyone is willing. Personally, some of this stuff gives me a headache. 🙂
 
The main thing to bear in mind WRT the “argument from motion” is that “motion” means “bringing something from potentiality to actuality,” not necessarily “causing a thing to change its location.”

Edwin
 
That’s a good point to remember. “Motion” is more accurately translated as “change” (qua potentiality to actuality).
 
This is also why both Aristotle and Aquinas thought that the universe, even if it had existed eternally, required a Creator. Anything that is potentially not the case (such as this universe) requires a cause for its being the case (its existing). So the universe requires an Uncaused Cause or Unmoved Mover even if the universe has always existed.

Today, of course, we know the universe has not always existed. But for Aquinas, it didn’t matter.
 
cpayne said:
This is also why both Aristotle and Aquinas thought that the universe, even if it had existed eternally, required a Creator. Anything that is potentially not the case (such as this universe) requires a cause for its being the case (its existing). So the universe requires an Uncaused Cause or Unmoved Mover even if the universe has always existed.

Today, of course, we know the universe has not always existed. But for Aquinas, it didn’t matter.
Click to expand...
Clarification: he thought that as a matter of faith we had to believe that the universe had a beginning, but that it couldn’t be proved by reason. It mattered theologically.

It’s fair to say that current secular models of the universe favor the Christian view more than those prevalent in Aquinas’s day did–but that could change. It’s still very much a matter of debate. I wouldn’t say that we “know” something that they didn’t. But it’s certainly a lot easier to postulate a beginning for the universe under modern scientific theories than it was for someone working with an Aristotelian model.

Another point: Aristotle didn’t think that God was the Creator in the sense of the efficient cause–presumably you are talking about his view that God is the final cause of the universe.

Edwin
 
40.png
cpayne:
This is also why both Aristotle and Aquinas thought that the universe, even if it had existed eternally, required a Creator.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Supposing a Newtonian view of time is correct, and that time exists independently of the apparent motion of the universe, there must still be a Prime Mover in order to avoid an infinite chain of movers. However, I also agree with you that current cosmology lends itself toward an absolute beginning of the universe’s existence. Interestingly, William Lane Craig argues that this is the most consistent position to hold regardless of the scientific evidence. In other words, if an infinite chain of movers is impossible on purely philosophical grounds, then why isn’t an infinite amount of time? He goes into much detail in his book The Kalam Cosmological Argument. It’s a good read.
 
Contarini said:
Clarification: he thought that as a matter of faith we had to believe that the universe had a beginning, but that it couldn’t be proved by reason. It mattered theologically.

Edwin
Click to expand...
Oops, right! I meant it “didn’t matter” with regard to his argument for God’s existence.
 
punkforchrist said:
I like Peter Kreeft’s analogy. Imagine I ask if I can borrow a book from you. You say you’ll first need to borrow it from a friend, and he tells you that he needs to borrow it from a friend, and so on ad infinitum. The question is, who actually has the book? It would further seem that I would never get the book, since before I could ever get it, another person would always have to lend it to another before it ever reached me.
Click to expand...
I’d never heard of Kreeft’s analogy - I like it too. It’s almost as if there is no book - you just have a series of borrowers, but no first lender.

I also like to think about monkeys hanging eachother, with the first monkey hanging from a tree. If the tree doesn’t exist, the monkeys would just be in a heap on the ground.
 
RobNY said:
The proof of the unmoved mover comes towards the end (book VII I think) of Aristotle’s Physics. That’s the text to examine if you want to know.
Click to expand...
Just a small correction, it is book XII of the Metaphysics that the main argument for the unmoved mover lies. I think there is a section in the Physics, also, that covers that idea also, though in far less detail.
 
Also, about Aristotle’s argument…

It does not require that the universe be of finite duration. Aristotle accepted that the universe always was, that one could go back for an infinite amount of time, potentially. There was no point in the universe that could be called “beginning”. This is the Kalam argument, but it is not Aristotle’s.

Aristotle’s argument is an argument about change. Everything has four causes, formal, material, efficient, and final. For example, a cup has a formal cause, it is in the form of a cup, a material cause, it is made of plastic, an efficient cause, it was made in a factory in China, and a final cause, it was made to hold liquid. Now, the series of efficient causes extends infinitely, according to Aristotle. So going back, we find more and more things as just potentials. Before the plastic that now is in the form of my cup was a cup, it was only potentially a cup. We keep going backwards and backwards, and we find that more and more things are potentials. Aristotle argues that one thing has always been actual (has never been and can never be potential), because without him, nothing would ever be actualized. This Aristotle calls God.

So part (3) of your argument is unnecessary. God is required regardless.
 
Saul.Tentmaker said:
Just a small correction, it is book XII of the Metaphysics that the main argument for the unmoved mover lies. I think there is a section in the Physics, also, that covers that idea also, though in far less detail.
Click to expand...
Thanks. I’m actually quite unfamiliar with the Metaphysics, so I didn’t know that argument existed. I pulled out my copy, and found in bk. XII (lambda), ch. 6 an argument for eternal immovable substance.

I’d say this is a different argument because lambda seems to focus on substance whereas the Physics focuses on motion (change). So it seems to me that we would most properly name the argument from the Physics to be the ‘unmoved mover’ argument, and the argument in the Metaphysics to be the, “eternal unmovable substance” argument (the translations found in McKeon’s Basic Works).

-Rob
 
Thanks for the info on the Metaphysics, Saul. 👍
40.png
Saul.Tentmaker:
So part (3) of your argument is unnecessary. God is required regardless.
Click to expand...
I should have explicated that I meant, “This cannot go out to infinity” qua an infinite chain of movers, rather than an infinite amount of time; or put another way, there cannot be only potential movers without a being that is pure actuality.

Blessings
 
Many people have debunked the argument of motion by gravity,

Personately in order to prove the existens of God I prefer the argument of the intelligent desing rather than the one of motion.
 
Hi Jimmy,
Many people have debunked the argument of motion by gravity
Click to expand...
The argument from motion is most accurately described as “the argument from change”, since it involves not just the movement from one location to another, but all change. For example, we all know what a chicken egg looks like, but if I held one up and exclaimed, “chicken!”, I would be corrected and told that it is only in potentiality a chicken. In order to become a chicken, it has to undergo a complex series of changes brought about by different causes. What the argument from motion claims is that this series of causes (i.e. “movers”) cannot proceed to infinity, because otherwise the present state of motion would have never arrived.

Blessings
 
jimmy85 said:
Many people have debunked the argument of motion by gravity
Click to expand...
How does that refutation work?
Personately in order to prove the existens of God I prefer the argument of the intelligent desing rather than the one of motion.
Click to expand...
Well, I disagree. I think that modern arguments from “intelligent design” are relatively shallow.

Edwin
 
Hi Edwin,
40.png
Contarini:
How does that refutation work?
Click to expand...
I think he was saying that if gravity is the cause of planetary (and other kinds of) motion, then an unmoved Prime Mover would be unnecessary. However, I agree with that this objection does not appear sound. Gravity is not the only cause of motion (re:“change”).

I have been doing some further reflection on this, and I now find the argument from motion to be much stronger than I had anticipated. I am having a debate on another forum on the kalam argument, but these observations apply equally to the argument from motion. Reading Thomas Aquinas has been invaluable! 🙂

The Prime Mover is pure actuality

As the mover of all that is in potentiality, the Prime Mover must be pure actuality.

The Prime Mover is one

Since the Prime Mover is pure actuality, it must also be one, since distinctions entail limitations, and limitations entail potentiality. But the Prime Mover is not in potentiality; therefore, the Prime Mover must be one.

The Prime Mover is immutable

This likewise follows, since change implies potentiality; and because the Prime Mover is not in potentiality, it must be changeless, or immutable.

The Prime Mover is eternal

Time entails change, but the Prime mover is changeless. Therefore, the Prime Mover is eternal, or timeless.

The Prime Mover is infinite

Again, limitations arise from potentiality. Since the Prime Mover is not in potentiality, it must be unbounded and infinite.

** The Prime Mover is personal**

Personal beings like ourselves are in potentiality. Because the Prime Mover is the cause of all that is in potentiality, it must have the utmost knowledge that potential beings participate in. But only personal beings are intelligent. Therefore, the Prime Mover must be intelligent, as well as personal.

This, as Thomas Aquinas says, is what we call God.

I find Aquinas’ reasoning to be sound, but I am wanting to see how strong this approach really is. Can anyone come up with some objections that may be raised?

Blessings
 
punkforchrist said:
** The Prime Mover is personal**

Personal beings like ourselves are in potentiality. Because the Prime Mover is the cause of all that is in potentiality, it must have the utmost knowledge that potential beings participate in. But only personal beings are intelligent. Therefore, the Prime Mover must be intelligent, as well as personal.
Click to expand...
Hi pfc, I am unfamiliar with any proofs that demonstrate that God is personal. I know Aquinas demonstrates that God exists, is one, contains all perfections, etc, but I was not aware that he nor anyone else thought that this characteristic is knowable by reason. Do you have a reference for this?

Thanks, Luke
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top