The First Way Explained

[Linusthe2nd]

Below are a couple of videos which I thought explained the First Way well and fairly. They aren’t too long, so watch them and comment.

1. youtube.com/watch?v=7Q6cy0OJhPo ( ten min )

It should be pointed out that while the author employs Thomas’ inclusion of the " heavenly spheres and bodies " as found in the same argument in the Summa Contra Gentiles, these can be omitted ( becauses the science on which they were based has been replaced ), and then we conclude immediately to the Unmoved Mover.

1. youtube.com/watch?v=Qmpw0_w27As ( 12 min )
   I disagree with this author in that I think we can use the first way to prove all the attributes of God that Part 1 of the S.T. deals with.

Also,
I disagree with the author a little on his explanation of how inertial motion should be explained. In this I disagree a Edward Feser also. I think the fact that the continued motion of a thrown object can be easily explained by the fact that the agent cause has not only activated the potential for movement of our projectile but has also activated the potential of a mass, when moved, to continue to move. In other words, an object with mass has a nature such that it can be moved and that it will continue to move unless acted upon by a contrary, restraining motion. Our agent has activated two potentials, not one.

3, youtube.com/watch?v=qMZbYHZZ_XM ( 2-3 min )

I like his examples.

1. A written explanation of the First Way from the Quodlibet Journal

quodlibet.net/aqu5ways.shtml

I disagree with this author on his restricted use of the latin term motus. He does not think that substantial change should be included. All the commentators of Thomas that I have disagree ( including Feser ), including the Blacksfryier, translators, editors and commentators of the Summa Theologica, and in particular of Thomas O.P., the translator and commentator of Part 1, ques 2-11. There is no reason to restrict the meaning of motus.

I disagree with him on several other points as well. But he covers the topic well otherwise.

Please limit your comments to the First Way.

Linus2nd

 

[Perplexity]

So, let’s suppose there is an unmoved mover. Why did the very first actualization of potency happen? The unmoved mover couldn’t have moved itself, since–as Aquinas says–self-motion is impossible. Nothing could have moved the unmoved mover, since then, it wouldn’t be an unmoved mover.

But, if the unmoved mover didn’t move itself, and neither did anything external to it, then the very first actualization of potency occurred without any cause whatsoever. That is, it was a completely random event, an utterly brute fact.

However, part of the reason Aquinas said nothing can move itself is because potency cannot be actualized without any cause whatsoever: it requires something already in motion.

Thus, the argument seems internally inconsistent.

Further, if it’s not internally inconsistent, we can make far better sense of an unmoved mover that behaves randomly if we identify it as some natural state of the universe than as a personal being.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

So, let’s suppose there is an unmoved mover. Why did the very first actualization of potency happen? The unmoved mover couldn’t have moved itself, since–as Aquinas says–self-motion is impossible. Nothing could have moved the unmoved mover, since then, it wouldn’t be an unmoved mover.

But, if the unmoved mover didn’t move itself, and neither did anything external to it, then the very first actualization of potency occurred without any cause whatsoever. That is, it was a completely random event, an utterly brute fact.

However, part of the reason Aquinas said nothing can move itself is because potency cannot be actualized without any cause whatsoever: it requires something already in motion.

Thus, the argument seems internally inconsistent.

Further, if it’s not internally inconsistent, we can make far better sense of an unmoved mover that behaves randomly if we identify it as some natural state of the universe than as a personal being.

Please indicate which of the links your are referencing and which particular point made you are objecting to . One of my objectives was to get folks to view the links. Then I will try to answer questions/objections.

Linus2nd

 

[Perplexity]

Well, each link covers the First Way, and therefore argues (or explains) that an infinite regress of movers in an essentially ordered series is impossible. Thus, each link affirms that there was a very first actualization of potency. That’s the point I was addressing.

Because the unmoved mover could not move itself to bring about the first actualization of potency, nor be moved by anything else to do so, the first actualization of potency cannot have a cause: it must be random. But, that contradicts Aquinas’ claim that “whatever is in motion is put in motion by another.” Thus, the argument seems internally inconsistent.

However, if there is a way of resolving this so that there’s nothing wrong with the very first actualization of potency being random, we can make better sense of such an unmoved mover if we regard it as a state of the universe than as a personal being.

 

[inocente]

Below are a couple of videos which I thought explained the First Way well and fairly. They aren’t too long, so watch them and comment.

1. youtube.com/watch?v=7Q6cy0OJhPo ( ten min )

Errr… the author of that video disproves the first way in another video here:

youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_510684&feature=iv&src_vid=7Q6cy0OJhPo&v=urj4K1blY3w

(It is linked from his first video).

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Errr… the author of that video disproves the first way in another video here:

And you are certain he is correct? Perhaps you think so because that is you natural predilection.

youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_510684&feature=iv&src_vid=7Q6cy0OJhPo&v=urj4K1blY3w

(It is linked from his first video).

Thank you, I didn’t know that was there. And it raises issues which you have raised before. I maintain that it does no harm to Thomas’ argument at all. Leaving aside for a moment the " free " exchange of mass and energy " floating ( so to speak ) through the universe ( which would be a discussion starting with the source of this phenomena with the " Big Bang { if this really was the start of things as currently thought } ), this really has nothing to do with these same phenomena as they exist within the nature of things we normally identify as substances. Horses, cows, trees, lumps of pure gold, uranium, iron, man, water, all the elements on the periodic table, etc. are examples of such substances.

Each has an inner nature identified by its characteristic powers and operations, matter, even its physical appearance, its known atomic attriburtes, etc… The matter of each is indeed composed of those basic elements, molecules, etc. ( electrons, the four forces the video identifies, and others we may not know about). But it is the underlying nature of the substance which directs these elements according to the law of design God has provided each nature. They function for the good of the particular substance.

Now as far as effusions of energy/mass given off by various elements, or even by living things there is no conflict with Thomas’ understanding of motion. His understanding of motion allows for the effusions of natural processes, which I explained are governed by the specific nature of the substance in which they exist. Though when we get down to the atomic and sub-atomic levels it would be nearly impossible to show just what is causing what.

But there is no reason to suppose that Thomas’ principles of act and potency, the four causes, etc. no longer apply simply because we have reached a level at which we have no good vantage point of observation.

You must keep in mind that Thomas is not attempting to draw out and explain scientifically every change that ever occurred or will occure. He is showing us principles that hold true for all contingent reality ( even for angels ).

What we see is that we can draw each example out as far as we can and then must admit that an Unmoved Mover, pure Act, exists which sets each chain of reactions going. And the Unmoved Mover, is not a physical part of the chain but exists outside it and moves it by an exercise of a power that can only be described as Will.

I explained in the O.P. that Thomas’ arguments do not depend on the Clestrial Mechanics prevelant at the time. We can omit those and go directly to the Unmoved Mover. If you want to see how that is done then just read the S.C.G. where Thomas uses it. In the S.T. he does not use it. The author was being a little unfair and showing his bias by using the argument from the S.C.G. Thomas himself admited that he was not certain himself whether they represented the real state of affairs.

Also, remember that Thomas taught that God created whole substances. I told you one time that at the very orgin of things we do not know what form those substances took.

Also remember that Thomas intended his arguments to apply to either an eternal universe or one which had a unique beginning. That fact was over looked.

Now you should watch the videos again, and the others and see if what I have said makes sense.

So I fail to see how the author has invalidated the First Way.

When I say the author is biased I mean he is cowed by the fraternity to which he belongs. I do not belong to that fraternity, so I have no fear of objections raised by unpopular notions closely guarded.
Linus2nd

 

[inocente]

And you are certain he is correct? Perhaps you think so because that is you natural predilection.

youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_510684&feature=iv&src_vid=7Q6cy0OJhPo&v=urj4K1blY3w

Thank you, I didn’t know that was there. And it raises issues which you have raised before. I maintain that it does no harm to Thomas’ argument at all.

We can agree with Thomas that reasoning is consistent with Christian faith, but the First Way depends on his theory of motion/change, which we now know is wrong. That’s not a black mark against Thomas, much physics was discovered after his time, but the argument fails if you replace his wrong physics with what we now know (and which is well proven by observation).

*So I fail to see how the author has invalidated the First Way.

When I say the author is biased I mean he is cowed by the fraternity to which he belongs. I do not belong to that fraternity, so I have no fear of objections raised by unpopular notions closely guarded.*

The author of the video says here that he got his PhD from the Center for Thomistic Studies at the (Catholic) University of Saint Thomas.

Can’t imagine anyone better qualified! Anyway, his critique depends only on basic physics, not on him as an authority.

btw the author has linked expanded texts for the videos here.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

We can agree with Thomas that reasoning is consistent with Christian faith, but the First Way depends on his theory of motion/change, which we now know is wrong. That’s not a black mark against Thomas, much physics was discovered after his time, but the argument fails if you replace his wrong physics with what we now know (and which is well proven by observation).

The author of the video says here that he got his PhD from the Center for Thomistic Studies at the (Catholic) University of Saint Thomas.

Can’t imagine anyone better qualified! Anyway, his critique depends only on basic physics, not on him as an authority.

btw the author has linked expanded texts for the videos here.

Hey, great. You did at least actually look at the material. I will respond more fully later. I will just point out that getting your Phd from ST. Thomas or even the Angelicum does not protect one from error. I suggest that Dr. Magee is one of the decadent Thomists the Pope recently spoke against. This is not to say Dr. Magee is a bad person, it simply means he has not really understood Thomas.

Did you look at the 12 min. video? I thought it was pretty good too. You realize these that I am using them just for a starting point?

Linus2nd

 

[inocente]

Hey, great. You did at least actually look at the material. I will respond more fully later. I will just point out that getting your Phd from ST. Thomas or even the Angelicum does not protect one from error. I suggest that Dr. Magee is one of the decadent Thomists the Pope recently spoke against. This is not to say Dr. Magee is a bad person, it simply means he has not really understood Thomas.

Did you look at the 12 min. video? I thought it was pretty good too. You realize these that I am using them just for a starting point?

I had a quick look at it, it repeats all the common mistakes such as the box cars and so on.

My impression is that the Pope’s remarks were aimed at those who try to cling to old arguments long after they have been disproved. Pope Francis said: “St. Vincent of Lerins makes a comparison between the biological development of man and the transmission from one era to another of the deposit of faith, which grows and is strengthened with time. Here, human self-understanding changes with time and so also human consciousness deepens. Let us think of when slavery was accepted or the death penalty was allowed without any problem. So we grow in the understanding of the truth. Exegetes and theologians help the church to mature in her own judgment. Even the other sciences and their development help the church in its growth in understanding." - americamagazine.org/pope-interview

The Pope is speaking of morals but I think he recognizes that even physics and its development helps the church in its growth in understanding, and part of that growth is to discard false arguments. Dr Magee seems to have a lot of respect for Thomas, but sees the flaws in the First Way, which I think anyone with even high school physics can do. For those people it’s a sinking ship, in company with geocentrism and others, decaying and declining, which after all is what decadence means.

So fine, discard it, move on, no biggy. I mean, it’s not revelation or anything, what’s the problem with waving it goodbye?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I had a quick look at it, it repeats all the common mistakes such as the box cars and so on.

My impression is that the Pope’s remarks were aimed at those who try to cling to old arguments long after they have been disproved. Pope Francis said: “St. Vincent of Lerins makes a comparison between the biological development of man and the transmission from one era to another of the deposit of faith, which grows and is strengthened with time. Here, human self-understanding changes with time and so also human consciousness deepens. Let us think of when slavery was accepted or the death penalty was allowed without any problem. So we grow in the understanding of the truth. Exegetes and theologians help the church to mature in her own judgment. Even the other sciences and their development help the church in its growth in understanding." - americamagazine.org/pope-interview

The Pope is speaking of morals but I think he recognizes that even physics and its development helps the church in its growth in understanding, and part of that growth is to discard false arguments. Dr Magee seems to have a lot of respect for Thomas, but sees the flaws in the First Way, which I think anyone with even high school physics can do. For those people it’s a sinking ship, in company with geocentrism and others, decaying and declining, which after all is what decadence means.

So fine, discard it, move on, no biggy. I mean, it’s not revelation or anything, what’s the problem with waving it goodbye?

As long as people use it as an excuse to dismiss any proof for the existence of God it remains necessary to prove that they are wrong. Because, you know, as well as I, that they will keep citing this as proof that " our " side is wrong. They will use it as a whip as they continue to throw Gallelo in our face inspite of the fact that they continue misconstrue the case. But besides that I happen to belive that the First Way covers all bases, it just has to be understood properly.

I also believe that one must defending truth even if it is unpopular. And it is our effort at doing that that keeps you coming back.

Megee failed because he lost his nerve.

And what did you think of the rest of my post #6?

Linus2nd

 

[inocente]

As long as people use it as an excuse to dismiss any proof for the existence of God it remains necessary to prove that they are wrong. Because, you know, as well as I, that they will keep citing this as proof that " our " side is wrong. They will use it as a whip as they continue to throw Gallelo in our face inspite of the fact that they continue misconstrue the case.

Christ is on the street, imho brand image takes care of itself when priorities are clear.

Hillsong - All I Need Is You - youtube.com/watch?v=8Qo-rdtoJWs

I also believe that one must defending truth even if it is unpopular. And it is our effort at doing that that keeps you coming back.

The truth is in the Spirit bro, failed philosophical arguments can’t bring salvation and deserve to be unpopular.

Megee failed because he lost his nerve.

It’s not difficult to spot the cracks in the First Way, quite the opposite. It does take nerve to go against the herd, to say out loud that the Emperor has no clothes on, but I’d guess that if we visited that university and asked around, most academics there would agree with Magee.

And what did you think of the rest of my post #6?

It wasn’t until I came to CAF that I ever met anyone who argued that substances, natures and essences are real. You could have knocked me down with a feather. Talk about different worlds.

Sure we all sometimes go primeval and attach spirits to things, all of us have been there with John Cleese thrashing his car:

youtube.com/watch?v=78b67l_yxUc

But when we calm down, we know that things aren’t really possessed by a contrary nature. None of these supposed natures and substances exist objectively outside of our heads.

Typically, at this point ye oldie medievalists call me a materialist running dog and scientific fellow traveler.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Christ is on the street, imho brand image takes care of itself when priorities are clear.

Hillsong - All I Need Is You - youtube.com/watch?v=8Qo-rdtoJWs

The truth is in the Spirit bro, failed philosophical arguments can’t bring salvation and deserve to be unpopular.

It’s not difficult to spot the cracks in the First Way, quite the opposite. It does take nerve to go against the herd, to say out loud that the Emperor has no clothes on, but I’d guess that if we visited that university and asked around, most academics there would agree with Magee.

It wasn’t until I came to CAF that I ever met anyone who argued that substances, natures and essences are real. You could have knocked me down with a feather. Talk about different worlds.

Sure we all sometimes go primeval and attach spirits to things, all of us have been there with John Cleese thrashing his car:

youtube.com/watch?v=78b67l_yxUc

But when we calm down, we know that things aren’t really possessed by a contrary nature. None of these supposed natures and substances exist objectively outside of our heads.

Typically, at this point ye oldie medievalists call me a materialist running dog and scientific fellow traveler.

No, I would just say you are having a bad hair day. I will say, you never disappoint, the same cloud of negativity follows you around wherever you go. This is the philosophy forum you know. And I admit that few today know exactly what that means but even you have learned something about us old fossils from the Middle Ages ( A.K.A., the Golden Age of Truth and Reason ).

You will please note that I have never disparaged science, I think it is fascinating ( in small doses). One could wish however that the attitude was reciprocal.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Lesson 1.

To begin an explanation one needs to address a few misconceptions. The First Way was the first proof offered by Thomas for the existence of God in his Summa Theologica. He describes it as a book for beginners. But it was for beginners in Theology, not philosophy. All the terms and principles it uses are presumed to have been learned by the students in their earlier courses in philosophy, which ran onto four years and covered most of his earlier works, with a good dose from the Greek, Muslim, and Jewish greats - and science, such as it was in his day.

That said, he naturally begins with five of his many proofs for the existence of God. But the First Way was the one he considered the most important, which is evident from his frequent referce to it throughout the Summa. It was also most important because motion is something most evident in the surrounding world, immediately evident to our senses.

Further he felt that it best displayed the fundamental underlying properties and principles of the existing beings around us. Which all the learned men of his age accepted without question. Principles which have become largely unknown to moderns since about the 16th century, when men became more interested in worldly pursuits than formerly. Men began to question the necessity of philosophy for this and other reasons, so philosophy became the pursuit of clerics only. And until a kind of revival beginning at the end of the 19th century, it was unknown at all among the great masses, even of the educated. Which is certainly true down to our day.

One thing that should be mentioned is that this proof does not depend upon the Celestrial Mechanics popularized by Aristotle. In fact, even in the Summa Contra Gentiles, where he does use it, it is not something central. Even there, one may omit any reference to the " heavenly spheres and bodies " and jump directly to the existence of the Unmoved Mover, whom " all call God. ".

Another thing that should be mentioned is that by motion in the argument, Thomas is referring to any type of change, including changes in quality ( color for example), size, substantial changes (i.e. living to dead ), movements of thought, will, local motion, etc.

It also should be pointed out that Thomas only needs to prove the existence of the Unmoved Mover from one instance of motion/change for the proof to be valid. Once it is established that there is an Unmoved Mover, we have reached God. And irregardless of whether we can prove that we have reached him by another argument, it may be assumed that his effects are generally applicable throughout the universe, however difficult or impossible it may seem to prove. And it is this fact that, I am convinced, " 'draws the flies " to attack it so vehemently.

The latter point is important for two reasons. One, it has been objected many times over the last hundreds of years by critics that Newton’s Law of Inertia disproves the argument. This is wrong, firstly, because we can throw out any mention of local motion in the form of a moving projectile and the proof is still valid. In other words, we have plenty of other examples of change upon which to hang the argument. And once we arrive at the Unmoved Mover by one of these, we have reached God. And that is all we intended to do. But in fact I do not think Newton’ Law of Inertia touches the argument.

For the agent mover in projecting a body of mass, not only sets it in motion but also activates the inner nature of the body. The inner nature of a body of mass is that it will cause the body to continue in motion once moved from potentiality to actuality. It will continue in the actuality of motion until acted upon by an opposing force.

This inner property of a body with mass to continue in motion is a part of its nature. And it has been activated by the agent mover. It becomes part of the act which has moved from potency to actuality, that is, its continued motion was something it had only potentially which was moved from potentiality to actuality by the mover agent. Thus, inertial motion has no adverse effect upon the argument of the First Way.

It has also been argued that the current state of physics which shows that all material things are composed of ultimate particles such as electrons, four countering forces, etc. In addition there is a whole universe of apparantly " free wheeling," particles and forces of gravity, etc. floating around unattached to any specific object or substance. This condition has prompted many to say that the First Way cannot apply to these " things " and therefore it fails.

I would argue again that we only need to demonstrate the validity of the First Way in one instance and we have arrived at God. We do not have to show how these new conditions of ultimate reality fit the argument. I would also say that I think we can show that the First Way can make a a reasonable accomodation for them.

In that regard, the first thing I would say is that in the nano universe, especially the " free wheeling " nano universe, we may be at the point of saying that we are witnessing the Unmoved Mover taking direct charge moving and changing things himself ,without any intrumental causes. Which is the whole object of the First Way any way. It is obvious things are moving and changing, something must be causing it. If we cannot find an instrumental cause, then the agent cause must be the Unmoved Mover. Voila, we have reached God.

I think this will be enough for now.

Linus2nd

 

[inocente]

No, I would just say you are having a bad hair day. I will say, you never disappoint, the same cloud of negativity follows you around wherever you go. This is the philosophy forum you know. And I admit that few today know exactly what that means but even you have learned something about us old fossils from the Middle Ages ( A.K.A., the Golden Age of Truth and Reason ).

You will please note that I have never disparaged science, I think it is fascinating ( in small doses). One could wish however that the attitude was reciprocal.

Hmmm. What you appear to be saying is that if you were to disagree with one philosophical argument then of course you wouldn’t be being negative or having a bad hair day or be against philosophy in general, but when I say one argument you like is shown to be false, I’m being negative and having a bad hair day and being against philosophy in general.



I do prefer more modern philosophy on occasion, for instance Santa Teresa de Ávila is 300 years after Thomas and 100 years before Newton, and she gets the modern physics spot on with a very succinct and profound argument: Let nothing disturb you, let nothing frighten you, everything passes, God does not change. Note, no complicated mechanisms, no wrong ideas, she just says it in a way we realize is self-evident: all things must constantly change, things cannot do otherwise, first movers not required.

Although as she has a thoroughly modern spirituality, yon medieval types such as your good self may find her somewhat materialist: “God has no body on earth but yours, no hands but yours, no feet but yours; Yours are the eyes with which the compassion of God looks at the world; Yours are the feet with which He walks to go about doing good; Yours are the hands with which he now blesses us.”

Which is just to say that Catholicism is not tied to one philosophy, whatever certain Thomists may have you believe.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Hmmm. What you appear to be saying is that if you were to disagree with one philosophical argument then of course you wouldn’t be being negative or having a bad hair day or be against philosophy in general, but when I say one argument you like is shown to be false, I’m being negative and having a bad hair day and being against philosophy in general.



I do prefer more modern philosophy on occasion, for instance Santa Teresa de Ávila is 300 years after Thomas and 100 years before Newton, and she gets the modern physics spot on with a very succinct and profound argument: Let nothing disturb you, let nothing frighten you, everything passes, God does not change. Note, no complicated mechanisms, no wrong ideas, she just says it in a way we realize is self-evident: all things must constantly change, things cannot do otherwise, first movers not required.

Although as she has a thoroughly modern spirituality, yon medieval types such as your good self may find her somewhat materialist: “God has no body on earth but yours, no hands but yours, no feet but yours; Yours are the eyes with which the compassion of God looks at the world; Yours are the feet with which He walks to go about doing good; Yours are the hands with which he now blesses us.”

Which is just to say that Catholicism is not tied to one philosophy, whatever certain Thomists may have you believe.

And I agree completerly except I think Thomas has a very valuable place, as does Augustine, and others.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Lesson 1 continued

Dr. Joseph M. Magee ( youtube.com/watch?v=7Q6cy0OJhPo ) has provided a critique of the First way in which he declares that it fails ( youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_510684&feature=iv&src_vid=7Q6cy0OJhPo&v=urj4K1blY3w ) and ( aquinasonline.com/ ) and ( aquinasonline.com/Topics/firstway-assess.pdf ).

It is little wonder Dr. Magee only taught philosophy for two years and is now in campus ministry. He has got Thomas very wrong in several places and he has misinterpreted the significance of modern physics in relation to the First way.

The first mistake he makes is in regard to the significance of Newton’s Law of Inertia in regard to the First Way ( see Lesson 1 above, post # 13 for reference ). There he states, " Like the principle in the First Way, Newton’s First Law asserts that whatever forces must be at work to bring about the change of state are external to the thing whose motion changes. " This is absolutely wrong. Aquinas’ law of change is stated in his presentation of the First Way. It says only that,

      "... Now whatever is moved is moved by another, for nothing can be moved except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is moved; whereas a thing moves in as much as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as ,fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing shoud be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in diffferent respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, I.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is moved must be moved by another..."

Notice the definition of motion here. It " …is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality…" We see that motion is not limited to local motion but includes all manner of changes, substiantial changes ( water becomes H2 and O ), accidental changes ( a man is converted from non-loving to loving ), successive changes, such as the alteration of qualities ( a blond haired child’s hair becomes brown in later years ), the addition or subtraction of quantities, as well as local motion.

So motion could well be interior to the nature of a thing. Indeed Thomas insists on that when dealing with the activities of the intellect, will, spiritual changes.

An important phrase is " …It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and mover ( for as Thomas said previously, ’ …it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects…’ ) …"

What this means is that not all motion must have its source outside the substance that is being moved. Motion can indeed originate in the same substance as that which is being changed. What allows for this is that one aspect of the nature of a substance is in potentiality to another aspect which is in actuality. My arm is in potentiality to motion provided that all my nerves, motor neurons, and my will to act are in act to producing that motion. And all this, including my will, is being moved by the Unmoved Mover. So my substance is being changed several ways, but not in the same respect, and simultaneously.

To be Continued

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Lesson 1 continued

These clarifications are important because as seen in my post 13 above, I insisted that a body with mass had such a nature that its mass would keep the body moving once it had been moved. So the agent is activating the motion in the body with mass and at the same time activating its nature to continue in motion unless acted on by another agent. So while it is true that what is causing the change, in this case, is external to the moved substance, this is not a necessity. Indeed, the incidental agent may be interior to the moved substance as indicated above. So the agent may be exterior or it may be interior.

This is important in handling the problem offered by modern physics. Dr. Magee says that Thomas mistates his premise that " …what is moved must be moved by another…" because " …some things change themselves through the exercise of intrinsic physical forces…" ( you can read all that he says by accessing the last link above ). He describes how these forces bring about physical change in both themselves and in everything else and that therefore changes are brought about by a means other that the activity of a continual, simultaneous external force not permitted by Thomas’ First Way and thus nullifies the First Way.

Phoo! Three things are going on here. We are dealing with three different realities. First we are dealing with what I have called " free floating " particles and other entities ( sometimes waves and sometimes particles) which Dr. Magee says are streaming out from the original " Big Bang " and which show that a chain of simultaneous, incidental agents is impossible because these " free floating " particles receed back in time. He makes two mistakes here which I may come back to later.

Secondly, we are dealing with many of these same particles ( though in the more compact form of four definitive forces, strong and weak, electromagnetic, and gravitational) of which the substances of our common everyday experience are formed.

Thirdly, we are dealing with substances of common everyday experience, in which we cannot see these forces operating.

What he does not tell us is that these substances, by which Aristotle, the great Muslim and Jewish Philosophers, and Thomas Aquinas ( and all philosophers into the 16th century ) identified as the realities of the universe, had natures. And these natures were created as integral components along with their acts of existence. These natures ( or forms ) contained certain forces and encoded instructions of operation, which allowed each substance to act in the manner determined proper to the type of substance it was. Thus a cow acted differently that a lump of gold, etc.

Now we cannot see these natures, nor even the substances, nor their acts of existence. We learn of their existence by observing the substances in operation. But with the advent of modern science we are able to " see " the physical entities ( particles, cells, molecusle, electrons, atoms, forces ) which comprise them. Aristotle, Thomas and the midieval philosophers would call these accidents, which inhere in the first substance ( as opposed to the second substance which we actually do see).

The important point is that these natures govern the activity of these interior physical entities so as to bring about the good of the whole substance. These entities, while having their own proper activities, are still governed by the natures in which they inhere. They are not free lance operators. It is the cow that chews the cud, not the molecules, atoms, cells, etc. of which it is constructed. So Dr. Magee fails to prove the First Way false here.

When an agent of our experience acts, it is its nature that is acting, not its atoms and molecules. And of course it is subject to gravity and electromagnatism, etc. But these forces do not determine the activities of a substance’s nature. On the contrary, they enable the nature to act. But they are not causes of its actvity, except in a very tangential way. So when Dr. Magee says these represent incidental agent causes which are time sensative he is absolutely wrong. They are not incidental agents in the chain of incidental agents simultaneously acting here and now to actuate a potential of some kind. They may be time sensative in a sense, but they are not incidental, per se, causes of a substance’s causality.

It simply does not matter that the physicality of a substance is part of the unfolding of evolutionary processes of the universe. These forces are not the agent causes of an effect occurring here and now.

A boulder is moved by stick, moved by arm, moved by a human will, moved by the Unmoved Mover. Period. Dr. Magee can talk about his forces until the cows come home, he has not dethroned the First Way.

And as I said in post 13, it is absolutely pointless to try determine the natures of the " free wheeling " entities and forces moving through the universe, for I suspect that we are witnesses to either the creative action of the Unmoved Mover or His activity as the primary agent, sustaining, organizing cause. Besides, the First Way only has to demonstrate one example of a change/motion demanding the existence of an Unmoved Mover to be effective.

To be continued ( hopefully )

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Lesson 1 Summary: All objections to the First Way have been answered, the Unmoved Mover of Thomas Aquinas is alive and well !!!

1. The First Way does not depend on the Celestial Mechanics of Aristotle or those of today. Thomas dropped Celestial Mechanics from the form of the argument presented in the Summa Theologica. We can do the same thing for the form of the argument given in the Summa Contra Gentiles or any where else. It simply is not needed.
2. The motion described in the First Way covers all forms of change, not just local motion.
   This is the opinion of responsible and expert masters of Thomistic Metaphysics. Indeed, if it were otherwise, we would be justified, in order to improve the argument, to stipulate that it does so. The object of Metaphysics is not a slavish devotion to any one philosopher but to arrive at the truth. So yes, we may stipulate that the argument covers all forms of change without exception. Indeed there is much proof in Thomas’ Corpus that he considered this to be the case.
3. The First Way does not exclude self-movement/change. What it does exclude is the kind of change where a substance would change itself to an entirely different substance. For example, that a tree would change itself into a horse.
4. The First Way is not adversely effected by Newton’s Law of Inertia.
5. The First Way is not adversely effected by any aspect of modern physics/science.
6. The First Way is valid for either an eternal or a finite universe.
7. The First Way does not say that everything must have a cause, it says that everything having the principles of act and potency as part of their composition must have a cause. The Unmoved Mover is pure act, so it does not and cannot, even in principle, have a cause, but simply exists eternally.
8. As long as there can be found one instance of change which can only be resolved by the existence of the Unmoved Mover, the First Way is successful, the Unmoved Mover has been reached and God has been found to exist. And that is the whole purpose of the First Way. Its purpose was not to conclude to the Unmoved Mover by every instance of change/movement that can be found.
9. The Unmoved Mover, being pure act, is not the first mover in a line of movers and moved, moving from potentiality to actuality, for the Unmoved Mover has no potentiality . Therefore it Moves things from outside this line. Thomas will show that it moves by an act of the will from its eternal state of existence.
10. The validity of the First Way is not adversely effected by theories of evolution so long as these theories do not begin with the invalid, unproven, unproveable assumption that the universe created itself.
11. The First Way is now proven to be valid and that it concludes to the existence of an Unmoved Mover which " all recognize as God."

 

[inocente]

1. The First Way is now proven to be valid and that it concludes to the existence of an Unmoved Mover which " all recognize as God."

If you say so.

A few comments using your numbers:

1. I think unless Thomas specifically retracted on celestial mechanics it would be against his intentions to remove it. Also I’ve previously been told (by another poster) that the ST version is too simplistic and is defeated by the principle of inertia (although it turned out the longer version is too).
2. Yes it does, for Thomas says “Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another”. Also there’s no such thing as substance or essence, that’s part of the discredited physics.

4.Yes it is, it’s defeated by any form of relativity.

1. Except in all the ways that it is, see Magee.
2. Nope for Thomas says “But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover”
3. There’s no such thing as potency, that too was part of the discredited physics (although it’s a mystery how it ever got included as it’s only a play on words anyway).
4. Unfortunately the onus is wrong. It’s a bit like saying Father Christmas must be real if we can’t think of any other explanation for why a sackful of presents arrived at the bottom of our bed. To be falsifiable the onus needs to be reversed, as Darwin did in On The Origin: “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down”.
5. Not sure of the relevance.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

If you say so.

A few comments using your numbers:

1. I think unless Thomas specifically retracted on celestial mechanics it would be against his intentions to remove it. Also I’ve previously been told (by another poster) that the ST version is too simplistic and is defeated by the principle of inertia (although it turned out the longer version is too).
2. Yes it does, for Thomas says “Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another”. Also there’s no such thing as substance or essence, that’s part of the discredited physics.

4.Yes it is, it’s defeated by any form of relativity.

1. Except in all the ways that it is, see Magee.
2. Nope for Thomas says “But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover”
3. There’s no such thing as potency, that too was part of the discredited physics (although it’s a mystery how it ever got included as it’s only a play on words anyway).
4. Unfortunately the onus is wrong. It’s a bit like saying Father Christmas must be real if we can’t think of any other explanation for why a sackful of presents arrived at the bottom of our bed. To be falsifiable the onus needs to be reversed, as Darwin did in On The Origin: “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down”.
5. Not sure of the relevance.

Well, thank you for your interest. I will answer more fully later, however I have answered all the questions in prior posts here, especially in the posts entitled " Lesson 1. " The points I make are certainly valid and true. That you disagree does not disprove them.

Linus2nd