The fault in Aquinas' First Way

[Partinobodycula]

Even if we assume that Aquinas’ First Way is a sound argument, it still contains at least one major fault:

That fault being that although it explains the presence of motion in material things, it doesn’t explain the existence of material things.

The First Way simply posits that everything in motion must have been put in motion by something else, and since an infinite regress is impossible, there must have been a first mover, an unmoved mover. But this does nothing to explain where that which was put in motion came from. It simply argues for an unmoved mover, not a creator.

We could imagine a universe in which nothing was in motion, in which case Aquinas’ First Way would do absolutely nothing to explain the world’s existence. If nothing is in motion, then there would be no need for a first mover.

So Aquinas’ First Way simply argues for God as a manipulator of matter, but not as a creator of it.

 

[Bahman]

Even if we assume that Aquinas’ First Way is a sound argument, it still contains at least one major fault:

That fault being that although it explains the presence of motion in material things, it doesn’t explain the existence of material things.

The First Way simply posits that everything in motion must have been put in motion by something else, and since an infinite regress is impossible, there must have been a first mover, an unmoved mover. But this does nothing to explain where that which was put in motion came from. It simply argues for an unmoved mover, not a creator.

We could imagine a universe in which nothing was in motion, in which case Aquinas’ First Way would do absolutely nothing to explain the world’s existence. If nothing is in motion, then there would be no need for a first mover.

So Aquinas’ First Way simply argues for God as a manipulator of matter, but not as a creator of it.

I agree with most of things you said. You could however hit harder and question the existence of soul instead of material world since soul as well as material world has to be animated to exist. I however don’t see any problem with infinite regress if the beginning is singular.

 

[davidv]

Even if we assume that Aquinas’ First Way is a sound argument, it still contains at least one major fault:{snip}

This statement is contradictory.

A sound argument contains true premises and valid logical deductions. There can be no fault in this circumstance.

 

[Triflelfirt]

"Even if we assume that Aquinas’ First Way is a sound argument, it still contains at least one major fault:

That fault being that although it explains the presence of motion in material things, it doesn’t explain the existence of material things."

So the fault of the argument from motion is that it explains motion, but not the existence of material things? In other words, the fault of the argument from motion is that it’s sound and explains what it intends to explain, but doesn’t cover what you’d like it to cover? That doesn’t sound very coherent at all to me.

Any road, we can also see that the First Way can also be used to understand existence, in a way, insofar as anything that actually exists must (obviously) be in act.

“The First Way simply posits that everything in motion must have been put in motion by something else, and since an infinite regress is impossible, there must have been a first mover, an unmoved mover. But this does nothing to explain where that which was put in motion came from. It simply argues for an unmoved mover, not a creator.”

“Where” that which was put in motion came from? Motion isn’t exclusive to matter. Something that is material can never account for the principle of motion in an essentially ordered series, since matter (in itself, without form) is just pure potency. But that doesn’t mean that motion only happens with beings that are composites of form and matter. An angel, for instance, has no matter, but is also moved — the will itself is moved. The series can only end in a being which is pure act, which isn’t moved.

“We could imagine a universe in which nothing was in motion, in which case Aquinas’ First Way would do absolutely nothing to explain the world’s existence. If nothing is in motion, then there would be no need for a first mover.”

We could imagine a universe in which nothing was in motion. So what? The premise is that there are things in motion. A universe in which nothing was in motion wouldn’t be our universe. And in fact it couldn’t even possibly exist, unless it were existence in itself (like God), and that can’t be possible because matter without form is just pure potency, and even souls (or any immaterial object that isn’t pure act) don’t have existence as their essence, since they have passive potency (if they didn’t, they’d be pure act…) to not exist, for instance. And souls (and angels) are moved insofar as they move anything, for they undergo changes of belief and desire.

“So Aquinas’ First Way simply argues for God as a manipulator of matter, but not as a creator of it.”

If you understand motion to be the change from potency to act, then it is quite clear that things must also be in act in order to properly exist. And if they are in act, either they were moved (from potency to act), or they are pure act.

 

[Triflelfirt]

I agree with most of things you said. You could however hit harder and question the existence of soul instead of material world since soul as well as material world has to be animated to exist. I however don’t see any problem with infinite regress if the beginning is singular.

The soul “has to be animated to exist”. Well, the soul has to be in act in order to exist. There can’t be an infinite regress in an essentially ordered series, and if we consider an essentially ordered series involving a human being (for instance), the soul can’t be the first mover because it also undergoes movement at the moment it is moving the other instrumental movers. The soul undergoes change of belief and will, for example. So the soul can’t be the first mover in an essentially ordered series; we must consider what moves the soul (the object of its appetite, for example), what moves the object, and ultimately, what allows the soul to remain in act, since the soul is not pure act. And what allows the soul to operate the body, which itself requires at every instant many different chains of essentially ordered series of movement (going as far as the natural laws, for instance) to exist and operate.

 

[Partinobodycula]

This statement is contradictory.

A sound argument contains true premises and valid logical deductions. There can be no fault in this circumstance.

As a rule I try to choose my words quite carefully. I specifically avoided using the word error, opting for fault instead, because even if we assume that the argument is sound, the conclusion is faulty.

Specifically the problem lies in the last line of the argument, “Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other, and this everyone understands to be God.”

But I would argue that everyone understands God to be the creator of the universe, and the argument doesn’t support such a conclusion. Neither does it support the idea that God and the unmoved mover are one and the same. Thus even assuming that the argument is sound, the conclusion is faulty.

If you would like to remove the fault, simply remove the last line.

 

[Bahman]

The soul “has to be animated to exist”.

There is no has to. Are you a puppet? What is the difference between an animated soul and puppet? Are you sure that what is the consequence of philosophical belief no spending a little time to imagine it?

We are consciousness. We are free because we cannot be animated hence we exist. Our freedom is the only evidence that we are consciousness.

Well, the soul has to be in act in order to exist.

That is correct.

There can’t be an infinite regress in an essentially ordered series, and if we consider an essentially ordered series involving a human being (for instance), the soul can’t be the first mover because it also undergoes movement at the moment it is moving the other instrumental movers. The soul undergoes change of belief and will, for example. So the soul can’t be the first mover in an essentially ordered series; we must consider what moves the soul (the object of its appetite, for example), what moves the object, and ultimately, what allows the soul to remain in act, since the soul is not pure act. And what allows the soul to operate the body, which itself requires at every instant many different chains of essentially ordered series of movement (going as far as the natural laws, for instance) to exist and operate.

There is no problem with infinite regress if the regress sallowed by a singularity.

 

[Partinobodycula]

So the fault of the argument from motion is that it explains motion, but not the existence of material things? In other words, the fault of the argument from motion is that it’s sound and explains what it intends to explain, but doesn’t cover what you’d like it to cover? That doesn’t sound very coherent at all to me.

I’m saying that the argument doesn’t support the conclusion given in the last line. Even IF the argument is sound, the conclusion is faulty.

“Where” that which was put in motion came from? Motion isn’t exclusive to matter.

The argument is specifically talking about motion that’s evident to our senses. It doesn’t at all address the question of where that matter in motion comes from.

A universe in which nothing was in motion wouldn’t be our universe. And in fact it couldn’t even possibly exist…

If you understand motion to be the change from potency to act, then it is quite clear that things must also be in act in order to properly exist.

So just to clarify, are you saying that without motion, matter and everything around us wouldn’t exist? Thus that which puts matter in motion is also that which creates matter?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

All responders so far are in error. The Unmoved Mover, which is the conclusion of the First Way, moves the world two ways. First by creating it. Second by moving it in the act of creation. This the definition of the Unmoved Mover, to create and to move. This is easy to see if you go on and read other pertinent parts of the Summa Theologiae, part 1, such as creation, providence, and man. The First Way of course assumes all these by pointing out that nothing moves itself from potentiality to actuality except that this motion be caused by an Unmoved Mover. All things exist potentially in the mind of God. When he creates, he moves them from potentiality to actuality.

As to the argument that we can imagine a universe that is not moving, such an imagined state has no bearing on the argument, because the argument deals with the real world, the one God created. But even if you can imagine a world that is not moving, it would have been moved from potentiality to actuality in the act of creation.

Can someone please explain to me the sudden attraction to Solipisism on this Forum? It is like the sudden outbreak of some disease. What have you all been studying or reading or viewing?

Linus2nd

 

[davidv]

As a rule I try to choose my words quite carefully. I specifically avoided using the word error, opting for fault instead, because even if we assume that the argument is sound, the conclusion is faulty.

Specifically the problem lies in the last line of the argument, “Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other, and this everyone understands to be God.”

But I would argue that everyone understands God to be the creator of the universe, and the argument doesn’t support such a conclusion. Neither does it support the idea that God and the unmoved mover are one and the same. Thus even assuming that the argument is sound, the conclusion is faulty.

If you would like to remove the fault, simply remove the last line.

Given this definition of soundness
philosophy.lander.edu:

1. soundness: a property of both arguments and the statements in them, i.e., the argument is valid and all the statement are true.

Sound Argument: (1) valid, (2) true premisses (obviously the conclusion is true as well by the definition of validity).

a sound argument cannot have a faulty conclusion.

Seems like you think the argument is doing more than it intended to do.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I agree with most of things you said. You could however hit harder and question the existence of soul instead of material world since soul as well as material world has to be animated to exist. I however don’t see any problem with infinite regress if the beginning is singular.

The soul exists of course because how else explain thought and the communication of thought between intelligent creatures? And how else explain the life of living things if each did not have a soul? In other words, how else explain nourishment, growth, reproduction, life, intellection, will, speach? Rocks and minerals do not do these things. Your last sentence needs explanation, otherwise it is incoherent.

Linus2nd

 

[Bahman]

All responders so far are in error. The Unmoved Mover, which is the conclusion of the First Way, moves the world two ways. First by creating it. Second by moving it in the act of creation. This the definition of the Unmoved Mover, to create and to move. This is easy to see if you go on and read other pertinent parts of the Summa Theologiae, part 1, such as creation, providence, and man. The First Way of course assumes all these by pointing out that nothing moves itself from potentiality to actuality except that this motion be caused by an Unmoved Mover. All things exist potentially in the mind of God. When he creates, he moves them from potentiality to actuality.

As to the argument that we can imagine a universe that is not moving, such an imagined state has no bearing on the argument, because the argument deals with the real world, the one God created. But even if you can imagine a world that is not moving, it would have been moved from potentiality to actuality in the act of creation.

Can someone please explain to me the sudden attraction to Solipisism on this Forum? It is like the sudden outbreak of some disease. What have you all been studying or reading or viewing?

Linus2nd

So we are independent by the very act of creation? How can you design a creation at the same time grant freedom to it? Freedom by definition is a quality that exist within a being and does not allow the knowledge of outcome of any decision. How you can then know the outcome? How God could possible justify the very act of creation not knowing the outcome?

 

[Triflelfirt]

There is no has to. Are you a puppet? What is the difference between an animated soul and puppet? Are you sure that what is the consequence of philosophical belief no spending a little time to imagine it?

We are consciousness. We are free because we cannot be animated hence we exist. Our freedom is the only evidence that we are consciousness.

That is correct.

There is no problem with infinite regress if the regress sallowed by a singularity.

We’re not “consciousness”. Our essence, as human beings, isn’t “consciousness”, otherwise we wouldn’t have a material body, we’d only be “consciousness”. And if by having intellect and will a being’s essence is now “consciousness”, then there would be no difference between, say, a man and an angel or any other incorporeal being that happens to have intellect and will. We are rational animals precisely because we are animals, we are a unity of body and soul, but we’re rational because of our immaterial soul, our form, which has intellect and will. “Consciousness” would be a very simplistic and faulty definition of our essence.

What do you mean “if the regress sallowed by a singularity”? Is such a “singularity” pure act, or does it have passive potency?

 

[Bahman]

We’re not “consciousness”. Our essence, as human beings, isn’t “consciousness”, otherwise we wouldn’t have a material body, we’d only be “consciousness”.

Yes you were consciousness but given a body hence now you can experience your essence which is consciousness.

And if by having intellect and will a being’s essence is now “consciousness”, then there would be no difference between, say, a man and an angel or any other incorporeal being that happens to have intellect and will. We are rational animals precisely because we are animals, we are a unity of body and soul, but we’re rational because of our immaterial soul, our form, which has intellect and will. “Consciousness” would be a very simplistic and faulty definition of our essence.

What do you mean “if the regress sallowed by a singularity”? Is such a “singularity” pure act, or does it have passive potency?

No, Consciousness is simple and primary. It is a thing with the ability to experience and affect mental states. This ability could manifest itself into act with the knowledge of self-awareness using a simple reflection. How you could find anything more profound than this? It is a double side mirror.

 

[Triflelfirt]

I’m saying that the argument doesn’t support the conclusion given in the last line. Even IF the argument is sound, the conclusion is faulty.

The argument is specifically talking about motion that’s evident to our senses. It doesn’t at all address the question of where that matter in motion comes from.

So just to clarify, are you saying that without motion, matter and everything around us wouldn’t exist? Thus that which puts matter in motion is also that which creates matter?

What is the conclusion? The conclusion of the First Way is that there is a first, unmoved mover that is Pure Act. Moreover, an argument CAN’T be “sound” and have a “faulty conclusion” at the same time.

I’ve already explained that pure matter – matter without form – would be pure potency. For something to exist, it must be in act. In a way, the First Way does explain how things exist and how things come to be – they’re moved from potency to act.

And ultimately, what puts matter (and ANYTHING) in motion is also that which created everything (God, pure act). If the universe had no motion, then everything would either be pure act (like God, but that’s impossible since matter by definition is potency, for instance), or pure potency (but then it wouldn’t properly exist!). If the universe were a mix of potency and act, perhaps you could argue that it could just “exist” without moving (even though that would be nothing like our universe), but the way I see it, that’s also impossible because if things are a mixture of potency and act and they exist, then they must be conserved in act, because act doesn’t necessarily follow from their own essence; hence there’d be motion of some sort – the keeping of things in act.

 

[Partinobodycula]

Given this definition of soundness a sound argument cannot have a faulty conclusion.

The argument in a nutshell:

 *Anything in motion is put in motion by something already in motion.
 This series of causes can't go on in an infinite regression.

 Thus there must be a first cause, an unmoved mover.*

That’s the argument, the last line is the conclusion.

The argument is sound as presented, although perhaps incorrect in its assumptions.

But supplemental to the argument Aquinas offers a further conclusion, one which isn’t supported by the argument itself. He equates the unmoved mover to the creator, something which may be true, but isn’t supported by the argument. Thus even if the initial argument is true, the secondary conclusion isn’t necessarily true.

Thus I stand by my original statement, Aquinas’ First Way has a fault. It doesn’t lie in the argument itself, but in the supplemental conclusion. Aquinas makes a claim not supported by the argument. Remove that claim and the argument will stand on its own.

 

[Triflelfirt]

Yes you were consciousness but given a body hence now you can experience your essence which is consciousness.

No, Consciousness is simple and primary. It is a thing with the ability to experience and affect mental states. This ability could manifest itself into act with the knowledge of self-awareness using a simple reflection. How you could find anything more profound than this? It is a double side mirror.

“No, Consciousness is simply and primary”. But if consciousness is to be taken as the essence of a being that has consciousness, and my essence is “Consciousness”, then anything that has consciousness, too, would have the same essence as me, and would only be accidentally distinguishable. If a man and an angel have the very same essence, their only differences would be accidental ones, and deep down they’d be the same thing. Why, then, would I need a body to “experience my essence which is consciousness”? Angels, who have intellect and will, don’t have a body, and they don’t need it in order to “experience” their “essence”.

I am not consciousness, a man is not consciousness. A man is a unity of body and soul, and not merely consciousness, which would make it undistinguishable from an angel or a separated substance. That’s faulty.

Besides, if we rule out the soul, then the body wouldn’t make any sense either; we wouldn’t have a “human body”, we wouldn’t be able to grow or do anything with it. If there were no soul – no form – our body would be matter without form. But that’s absurd.

 

[Triflelfirt]

The argument in a nutshell:

 *Anything in motion is put in motion by something already in motion.
 This series of causes can't go on in an infinite regression.

 Thus there must be a first cause, an unmoved mover.*

That’s the argument, the last line is the conclusion.

The argument is sound as presented, although perhaps incorrect in its assumptions.

But supplemental to the argument Aquinas offers a further conclusion, one which isn’t supported by the argument itself. He equates the unmoved mover to the creator, something which may be true, but isn’t supported by the argument. Thus even if the initial argument is true, the secondary conclusion isn’t necessarily true.

Thus I stand by my original statement, Aquinas’ First Way has a fault. It doesn’t lie in the argument itself, but in the supplemental conclusion. Aquinas makes a claim not supported by the argument. Remove that claim and the argument will stand on its own.

I’ve already explained how “creation” can be understood in terms of movement. Linusthe2nd also offered a good insight into this. It’s only logical that the first mover (who is PURE ACT, and that’s a big thing you’re leaving out) is also the creator of the universe, and quite honestly the only thing that could’ve created it, since it’s only one (because it’s pure act) and everything else is moved, is a mixture of potency and act which is kept in act, part of what we’d call the universe, both physical and spiritual.

If you specifically want a proof from existence, you should just read the Second Way. Afterwards, Aquinas goes on to show why the god of each of the five ways must be one and the same being (and frankly, they all converge into the same thing).

 

[Linusthe2nd]

So we are independent by the very act of creation? How can you design a creation at the same time grant freedom to it? Freedom by definition is a quality that exist within a being and does not allow the knowledge of outcome of any decision. How you can then know the outcome? How God could possible justify the very act of creation not knowing the outcome?

Yes we are independent or free in the choices we make. We were made that way by the desigin which exists in the Divine Intellect. There is no logical reason why we can not be created according to design and still be free. Our freedom, you see, was part of the design. ( you cannot imagine God sitting at a drafting board, he wills according to the plan in his mind ). Your definition of freedom is wrong. We have discussed this many times. Freedom does not preculde Divine Foreknowledge. God has foreknowledge of our freely chosen acts. There is no contradiction there, except in your own mind.

God does not have to justify anything. But as a matter of fact he knows that his Plan for creation will be completed. As I said before ,God has provided an answer for every wrong decision we make and, in the end, His Will will be accomplished. His Will is that His Glory be made manifest in the things he has made. This may not comport with our own understanding of what gives him glory. His glory is not tarnished because you and I may fall short, may even wind up in hell, for he has created others to take our place, so that the number of the just will be fulfilled. That is how he does it. He has a plan for a certain number to be saved to make up for the number of the lost and for the material world to be made perfect, which will happen after the General Judgment.

Linus2nd

 

[Bahman]

“No, Consciousness is simply and primary”. But if consciousness is to be taken as the essence of a being that has consciousness, and my essence is “Consciousness”, then anything that has consciousness, too, would have the same essence as me, and would only be accidentally distinguishable.

Ok.

If a man and an angel have the very same essence, their only differences would be accidental ones, and deep down they’d be the same thing. Why, then, would I need a body to “experience my essence which is consciousness”? Angels, who have intellect and will, don’t have a body, and they don’t need it in order to “experience” their “essence”.

Consciousness as it defined is a thing with the ability to experience and affect mental states. There is no where written that you have to have a body in order to be consciousness. You as human being however need a body to affect mental states which is different from what angels and demons approach their realities.

I am not consciousness, a man is not consciousness. A man is a unity of body and soul, and not merely consciousness, which would make it undistinguishable from an angel or a separated substance. That’s faulty.

Yes you are.

Besides, if we rule out the soul, then the body wouldn’t make any sense either; we wouldn’t have a “human body”, we wouldn’t be able to grow or do anything with it. If there were no soul – no form – our body would be matter without form. But that’s absurd.

What is your definition of soul?