Thomas Aquinas, The Unmoved Mover

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

Petergray

Guest
Sorry if this is in the wrong place

This is just a brief description of Aquinas’ movement theory. I hope it explains it to those of you who do not know it. I am a full believer in God and so I believe St Thomas Aquinas.
Aquinas
Thomas Aquinas states that everything moves. Nothing can move on its own so therefore there must an unmoved mover. Aquinas also talks about potentiality and actuality. Wood has the potential to be hot and fire is actually hot. To make something turn from being potentially hot, there has to be something that is actually hot. EG Fire.
 
Why must there be an unmoved mover, i.e. why can’t time extend back infinitely?

You are basically saying: there is no unmoved mover, therefore there must be an unmoved mover.
 
Petergray said:
Sorry if this is in the wrong place

This is just a brief description of Aquinas’ movement theory. I hope it explains it to those of you who do not know it. I am a full believer in God and so I believe St Thomas Aquinas.
Aquinas
Thomas Aquinas states that everything moves. Nothing can move on its own so therefore there must an unmoved mover. Aquinas also talks about potentiality and actuality. Wood has the potential to be hot and fire is actually hot. To make something turn from being potentially hot, there has to be something that is actually hot. EG Fire.
Click to expand...
To have an unmoved mover we need to have a way to determine what is moving and what is not moving. Since movement consists of a change in position over time then we need a set of spatial coordinates against which to measure position and we also need time - there can be no movement without time.

Hence any unmoved mover also requires the existence of space and time. It cannot exist on its own but requires other things to exist as well. An unmoved mover cannot be the origin of everything.

rossum
 
The unmoved mover concept is a natural result that derives from Newton’s laws of motion.

We know all objects in motion remain in motion and all objects at rest remain at rest unless acted upon by an outside force. We also know that energy is neither created nor destroyed. Because objects in motion were either created in motion or put into motion by some outside force, you get into a what moved what argument. Eventually the argument will boil down to “what started that movement” or “what created that explosion.” If energy is neither created nor destroyed, you are left with an unprovable hypothesis that is “time can go back infinitely” which is not only unprovable but in my opinion would be unlikely and force more ridiculous hypotheses to support it.

So the answer Thomas Aquinas came to is that eventually, you have to get to an initial mover that is not dependent on movement. The mover would need to be infinite movement (which is a concept physics could use but I still cannot wrap my head around) and he termed that mover “the unmoved mover.” Physics points you in this direction as one of its hypotheses for the creation of the universe. While close minded scientists will reject this theory because they do not want to believe in God nor do they want to even entertain anything that shows there may be an initial cause outside of their own imaginations.

It is funny to me that it is easier for people to believe that time can go back infinitely and that everything is cyclical with no beginning or end than to believe that maybe some intelligence beyond our understanding created everything we know. Both require faith, one is in men (which is scary beyond all else) and one in the creator. Choose wisely, your eternal life may depend on it.

Keep in mind, the unmoved mover concept is co-dependent on his other five proofs which use physics to define certain properties of God. For example, God being outside of time and space are necessities to the unmoved mover theory. All of this is easily concluded using only physics and its fundamental laws. Again though, this is just one hypothesis and it is ultimately the only one which makes sense of everything.

God Bless.
 
TheTrueCentrist said:
Why must there be an unmoved mover, i.e. why can’t time extend back infinitely?

You are basically saying: there is no unmoved mover, therefore there must be an unmoved mover.
Click to expand...
This is the infinite regress. More info can be found here:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_regress

BAsically, time cant go on forever, otherwise nothing would have been created. I DO believe in God by the way. I want to be a priest 🙂

God bless, have a good conversation 😃
:highprayer:
 
OchsFam said:
The unmoved mover concept is a natural result that derives from Newton’s laws of motion.
Click to expand...
Not entirely wise. Einstein’s General Relativity has replaced Newton in a number of situations.
We know all objects in motion remain in motion and all objects at rest remain at rest unless acted upon by an outside force.
Click to expand...
All experimental support for this statement has been done in a universe with both space and time. You cannot assume that the same will be true if there is neither space nor time. How would you distinguish a moving body from a non-moving body if you could not measure distance or time? None of the fundamental terms needed for the equations would be available.

Velocity = distance / time

If you cannot measure either distance or time then how can you ever hope to calculate velocity?

rossum
 
TheTrueCentrist said:
Why must there be an unmoved mover, i.e. why can’t time extend back infinitely?

You are basically saying: there is no unmoved mover, therefore there must be an unmoved mover.
Click to expand...
Because there is no such thing as “time” there is only change. Change ends with G-d because as the being whose substance is existence there is nowhere beyond Him to go. “No-thing exists” is a logical contradiction and therefore impossible. no-thing=some-thing, notA=A. Any being who is not literally the act of existing would itself be contingent and therefore a creation, not G-d.

@Ochsfam- Whats up JoCo? Whats you’re Parish?. I live in the Dotte, St. Patricks
 
warpspeedpetey said:
Because there is no such thing as “time” there is only change. Change ends with G-d because as the being whose substance is existence there is nowhere beyond Him to go. “No-thing exists” is a logical contradiction and therefore impossible. no-thing=some-thing, notA=A. Any being who is not literally the act of existing would itself be contingent and therefore a creation, not G-d.

@Ochsfam- Whats up JoCo? Whats you’re Parish?. I live in the Dotte, St. Patricks
Click to expand...
But that statement doesn’t tell us anything. All you’ve said is: existence must have always existed, so I’m going to call existence God.
 
TheTrueCentrist said:
But that statement doesn’t tell us anything. All you’ve said is: existence must have always existed, so I’m going to call existence God.
Click to expand...
So you’re a Pantheist?

An infinite uncaused mover has always been, which is why he is infinite. Finite existence has not always existed, stated by Petergray early in this thread, for infinite regression is not possible in a finite existence that has progression of time, or “change” (as warpspeedpetey has stated), or movement.

We can use empirical scientific data to shut down this steady state theory, but we all know that theory is non-existent today.

So what is your personal approach to this subject then?
 
Whether time is finite or infinite is moot for Thomas’ (and Aristotle’s) conception of God as Unmoved Mover. Think of a watch with gears that have been moving from all eternity. The watch still needs a spring. If at any point in time the spring is removed, the gears will cease to be in motion. This observation is true no matter what theory of physics is preferred (Newtonian, Einsteinian, etc).

For example, it is true on Newtonian physics that objects in motion do not need a sustaining mover on the conditions that these objects a) move in a straight line, and b) move in an empty vacuum. But of course, the motion of a watch’s gears, and more importantly the motion of the cosmos as a whole that Aristotle and Thomas refer to do not match either condition.
 
Trevor_Stamm said:
So you’re a Pantheist?

An infinite uncaused mover has always been, which is why he is infinite. Finite existence has not always existed, stated by Petergray early in this thread, for infinite regression is not possible in a finite existence that has progression of time, or “change” (as warpspeedpetey has stated), or movement.

We can use empirical scientific data to shut down this steady state theory, but we all know that theory is non-existent today.

So what is your personal approach to this subject then?
Click to expand...
But why must we posit a God as an entity distinct from existence itself? Sure, our own universe may be finite, but our own universe may simply be a subset of an infinite multi-verse.
 
punkforchrist said:
Whether time is finite or infinite is moot for Thomas’ (and Aristotle’s) conception of God as Unmoved Mover. Think of a watch with gears that have been moving from all eternity. The watch still needs a spring. If at any point in time the spring is removed, the gears will cease to be in motion. This observation is true no matter what theory of physics is preferred (Newtonian, Einsteinian, etc).
Click to expand...
This is a good explanation of Thomas and Aristotle. The first mover is not first in time, but first in causality. All the movers are simultaneous; in the same moment, gear 1 moves gear 2, gear 2 moves gear 3, etc In Aristotle, instead of gears, it’s spheres that are moving, one sphere enclosed in the next, etc (like a set of chinese boxes, but spheres instead of boxes) … the first all encompassing sphere moves by desire (of the unmoved mover, i.e., God) … then this movement moves the rest, all at the same time …
 
It seems to me that Aquinas’s argument is very good for proving the need of an unmoved mover to start the movement. Otherwise there would be an infinite regress, meaning that no link in the chain of movements would ever take place

But I’m not convinced that it also proves that the First Cause is always moving the universe. Afterall, the universe is composed of - let’s call them - natural beings. Each natural being’s movement is perfectly explained by other natural beings. The movement of a rock falling down, for instance: it is explained by the attraction of the Earth, by the speed and direction of the wind, by the force used to throw it, etc. Each of these are natural beings in the universe, and each of them can be explained by other natural beings.

The universe is a very complex web of relations between all the entities. And there doesn’t seem to be any movement in this web whose explanation requires something from outside the universe, that is, a supernatural being. The stone, the Earth, my fingers, a jetplane; all of these interact with each other, and all movements are outcomes of these interactions. Therefore, where is the need for the First Cause to be actually moving anything in the universe right now? The universe needed a starting point, an act of creation; but from that moment on it seems that the system is self-sufficient, meaning that none of its parts needs anything from outside the system to keep on moving (that is, doing whatever it is that it does); with the possible exception of the appearance of life and of the appearance of rational souls.

Now, I am Catholic, and not even for a moment do I doubt that if God were to “stop caring” (as if this were even possible) about the universe, it would cease to exist. But I don’t think that this conclusion can be derived from the observation of the universe itself.
 
Joel_PF said:
It seems to me that Aquinas’s argument is very good for proving the need of an unmoved mover to start the movement. Otherwise there would be an infinite regress, meaning that no link in the chain of movements would ever take place

But I’m not convinced that it also proves that the First Cause is always moving the universe.
Click to expand...
I know this may sound wildly speculative - but let’s assume the truth of string theory. Then, the first moving mover (analogous to the fixed sphere of stars in Aristotle) are the vibrating strings that are the basis for everything else. And the strings are always vibrating - so here’s where the simultaneous movement comes in. Now, what “moves” the strings … well, the Divine violinist

Again, just speculating …
 
levinas12 said:
I know this may sound wildly speculative - but let’s assume the truth of string theory. Then, the first moving mover (analogous to the fixed sphere of stars in Aristotle) are the vibrating multi-dimensional strings that are the basis for everything else. And the strings are always vibrating - so here’s where the simultaneous movement comes in. Now, what “moves” the strings … well, the Divine violinist

Again, just speculating …
Click to expand...
Heh, yeah, that could be it. The old idea of the universe as a closed system may no longer be acceptable, though I have a hard time letting go of it. And I imagine most scientists feel this way to; I mean, they will never cease to look for natural causes for all phenomena, including the mysterious movements of the multi-dimensional strings. Then again, just because they look for it, doesn’t mean they’ll find it.

I guess it’s up to the physicists right now to give us a more accurate picture of the universe we inhabit. Until then, I’ll settle with the Divine guitar-player!
 
rossum said:
If you cannot measure either distance or time then how can you ever hope to calculate velocity?
Click to expand...
Wrong question. If you cannot measure either distance (implying a change in space) or time (implying a change in time) how can you discuss motion?

Aquinas is actually talking about motion as though it is outside of time. But the concept makes no sense. One cannot discuss 4 sided triangles.
 
TheTrueCentrist said:
But why must we posit a God as an entity distinct from existence itself? Sure, our own universe may be finite, but our own universe may simply be a subset of an infinite multi-verse.
Click to expand...
A multi-verse theory, a steady state theory, a quasi-steady theory, an oscillating theory all still fail the acid test which is if the theory employs an infinite finite existence, it’s fault. We just observed that infinite regression is not possible in our time space. These are all simple fallacies to try and not acknowledge that before the big bang was nothing (no gravity, no laws, no finite existence, no physics what so ever), non-existence (nothingness) was in the state of un-causation and then the singularity was caused, and expansion happened. How out of a non-physic background? This confirms that in order for such an event to happen, something that exists outside of law, outside of physics, outside of finiteness and outside of time caused the first cause, this is what we call the “I AM”, the uncaused, one has always been, is, and will ever be, or to fit in one word, God.
 
Trevor_Stamm said:
something that exists outside of law, outside of physics, outside of finiteness and outside of time caused the first cause,
Click to expand...
You cannot have a cause unless you also have time. Your “first cause” cannot possibly be “outside of time”. Cause comes before the effect. Here the word “before” requires time. If there is no time then you cannot tell whether A cams before B or if B came before A. Hence you cannot distinguish cause from effect.

Causation requires time. In the absence of time there is no causation.

How do you know that your proposed “first cause” is not really the “second cause” unless you can distinguish between first and second? How do you distinguish between first and second in the absence of time?

rossum
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top