Lesson Seventeen: The argument from motion

12/1/2014

With this lesson a new kind of intellectual adventure begins an we dig into St. Thomas Aquinas's famous "Five Ways" of proving the existence of God. We start with the argument Aquinas considered to be the "first and most manifest" --- the argument from motion or change.

Let me state the argument all at once. After that we'll swing back to explain, elaborate and illustrate.

(a) We know from experience that some things are in motion ("motion" taken my Aquinas to refer not only to movement from one place to another but to any state of change). (b) Motion or change, Aquinas explains, is the "reduction of something from potentiality to actuality." (c) Nothing can be moved from potentiality to actuality "except by something already in a state of actuality." Said another say, "Whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another." (d) If what puts something else in motion is itself in motion, then it also must have been put in motion by yet something else.

(e) This series of "movers" cannot go back infinitely, because then there would be no first mover, and if there were no first mover, there would be no other movers because "subsequent movers move only insomuch as they are moved by the first mover..." (f) Therefore, "it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God" (Summa I.2.3).

OK, I understand your initial reaction. Let's go though this more slowly...

Potentiality and Actuality

What in the world does Aquinas mean when he defines "motion" or "change" as "the reduction of potentiality to actuality"? Sounds complicated, but it's really not so much.

Think about the dashboard in my car. When I climb into my car on an August morning here is sunny Southern California, the dashboard in not "actually" burning hot. It has the "potential" to be burning hot (believe me) but it isn't. In order for my dashboard to move from being "potentially" burning hot to being "actually" burning hot, a change will need to take place. In this particular sense, a "reduction of potentiality to actuality" must take place. This is change. Motion.

And my dashboard cannot reduce it's own potentiality to be burning hot to actuality. It cannot "move" itself. It cannot give to itself what it does not have. What is needed is for something that is not merely "potentially" burning hot, but "actually" burning hot, to "act" upon it. Like maybe the sun.

Now, if the sun were only "potentially" burning hot and not "actually" burning hot, it could not bring my dashboard from the state of "potentially" to "actually" in respect to its becoming burning hot. In that case something else that was already "actually" burning hot (or had the inherent power to move the sun from being merely "potentially" burning hot to being "actually" burning hot) would have to first act on the sun bringing it from potentiality to actuality before the sun could act on the dashboard and move it from being merely "potentially" burning hot to being "actually" burning hot.

Now, If this is not as bright and clear as the summer sun in sunny Southern California, then either I've missed by true vocation or you've watched too many episodes of Trailer Park, or whatever the shows are called this season: Tadpoles in Crisis, Born to Eat, whatever

Simultaneous Movement

OK, so we understand the idea of change or motion in terms of potentiality to actuality. And we understand that in this sense nothing can move itself.

We can see this even more clearly by using an illustration that involves actual movement. Imagine a boxcar filled with hobos and moving down the track. It's moving because the boxcar immediately behind it (also filled with hobos) is moving and pushing the one on front of it. But that boxcar is also moving and therefore pushing the boxcar ahead of it only because the boxcar immediately behind it (filled with hobos) is also moving and pushing it. And again that boxcar is moving because yet another immediately behind it (more hobos) is also moving... and so on and so forth.

Notice that this entire chain of boxcars is moving at the same time, simultaneously. And while each of the boxcars (obviously) has the "potential" to be moving, none of them has the power to move itself. In order for them (and the hobos within) to "actually" move, the entire chain must be acted upon by something that "actually" moves. At the bottom of this series of hobo-filled boxcars there must be something that has the power of movement within itself, like an engine. There must be a "first mover." When it moves, all the boxcars and all the hobos move simultaneously.

Similarly, Aquinas argues, in our universe of moved movers, none of which have the power to move themselves, there must be a "first mover" in whom the power of movement simply exists. An "unmoved mover." A being in whom there is no potentiality that needs to be actualized by something or someone else. A being who is pure "act," pure "actuality." And this being we call God.

An Infinite Series of Movers

Now, the most common objection to the argument outlined above is to simply assert that the chain of movers is infinite. "In our universe comprised of moving things, all in turn being moved by other things, each in turn being moved by still other things, the series simply goes back forever. There is no 'First Mover'. Rather what we have is an infinite series of moved movers."

To understand precisely how this is impossible (yes, I said "impossible"), we have to introduce a distinction at this point, because Aquinas talks about more than one kind of causal series.

First, there are causal series that are ordered per accidens or "accidentally." This is where the members of the causal series are connected, but where the activity of each member is not "directly" and "immediately" in the "here and now" dependent on the activity of prior member of the series.

For instance, my grandfather begat my father and my father begat me and I begat my son. And while it's certainly true that each member of this causal series is dependent on previous members for his existence (keep that in mind, young man) we are each independent of our fathers in the sense that our power to act is not immediately dependent on them. My father has been dead seventeen years and yet I can sit in Starbucks this morning and write this lesson. And while I'm sitting here typing away, my son is getting on an airplane to fly to New York on business of a dubious nature I won't go into.

This is an example of a causal series ordered per accidens. This kind of causal series is ordered horizontally in the sense that it extends backward and forward through time. We could argue whether such a causal series could at least be conceived as infinite.

But then there's another sort of causal series, one that is ordered per se or "essentially" --- the kind illustrated by the boxcars and hobos. In this kind of causal series the members are ordered vertically in the sense that the movement of each member of the series is entirely dependent "in the here and now" on the movement of the member prior to it, and so forth to the beginning. This is the kind of causal series Aquinas is talking about in his argument from motion, and in this kind of causal series there must be a first mover. It is impossible for the series to be infinite.

To illustrate, think of a boy using a stick to move a dead rat which is moving a half-eaten sandwich across the ground. If mom calls the boy in for lunch and he drops the stick, both the dead rat and the half-eaten sandwich stops moving. The entire series comes to a halt.

And the reason is that the movement of the half-eaten sandwich was immediately dependent on the movement of the dead rat, which was immediately dependent on the movement of the stick, which was immediately dependent on the movement of the boy's arm. In fact, strictly speaking the half-eaten sandwich was never really being moved by the dead rat, and the dead rat was never really being moved by the stick. The entire series was bring moved by the boy, and so the instant he dropped the stick to run inside, the series of "moved movers" no longer existed.

Aquinas said, "It is clear that when a thing moves because it is moved, the mover and the mobile object are moved simultaneously." Because of this, in the kind of series Aquinas is talking about, if there is no "first mover" there are no other movers in the series, because "subsequent movers move only insomuch as they are moved by the first mover..."

In this kind of series, if you eliminate the "first mover" you eliminate the entire series.

What about human beings?

"But what about human beings and other living things? Clearly, we have the ability to move ourselves. For instance, I can sit at a piano and move my fingers on the keys and play whatever I like. There's no "essential" causal series here leading back to an unmoved mover. It's just me."

Yes, but your finger's potentiality for motion is actualized by the muscles in your hands. And the muscle's potentiality for movement is actualized by your nervous system. And the potentiality of your nervous system is actualized by its molecular structure. And the potentiality of these molecules is actualized by their biochemical make-up. And the potentiality of the biochemical make-up of those molecules is actualized by their atomic and sub-atomic structure and...

To quote philosopher Edward Feser:

That the molecules composing the nervous system constitute a nervous system specifically amounts to their having a certain potency which is here and now actualized; that the atoms composing the molecules constitute just those molecules amounts to their having a certain potency which is simultaneously actualized, and so on.

In other words, no, when you sit down at the piano you are not simply "moving yourself."

When you move your fingers over the keys, an entire chain of potentialities being reduced to actualities is taking place simultaneously, all at once and in the here and now.

And since, as St. Thomas said, nothing can be moved from potentiality to actuality "except by something already in a state of actuality", since "whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another", there must ultimately be a first mover. And this first mover must be a mover that is not moved, an actualizer who needs no actualizing, a being in whom there is no potentiality, a being who is pure actuality. Pure act. A being who exists through the power of his own essence. A being who sounds very much like the one who said to Moses at the burning bush, ""I am who am. I am the one who exists."

28 Comments

Scott

12/1/2014 11:35:01 am

The Motion proof for the existence of God from Aquinas’s Summa fails. At best you get a universe that had a beginning. It doesn’t describe or prove who or what caused that beginning. The statement at the end “and this everyone understands to be God” is laughable. A Muslin apologist could use the exact same argument to conclude that Allah is the creator of the universe. So could ancient Egyptians or Greeks arguing for Atum or Gaea or a modern day Hindu arguing for the giant Cobra that Vishnu was sleeping in.

Moreover, how do you know the first Motion in the universe was the result of a deity? The first motion may be the result of a single intelligent being or a race of intelligent beings with the technological capabilities to create a universe.

If you haven’t read the original proof, you can find it translated into English below copied from this link: http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0023/_P2.HTM

The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch 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 should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different 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 in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

Stevi link

12/1/2014 09:35:53 pm

"And this everyone understands to be God" - note that we're not yet arguing for the Christian God, insofar as the Trinity; St. Thomas at this point is merely arguing for the premise of theism (or even deism, at the early stage). So it doesn't fail, but it alone does not reveal the Christian God.

To your second point - another individual or race of "Intelligent Beings" simply makes the chain of moved movers longer.

Au contraire, St. Thomas' argument from motion stands.

Ken

12/1/2014 11:41:20 pm

Thank you for commenting, Scott. I want to respond but it looks like Stevi has beat me to the punch and made two of the main points I would want to make. But I'll elaborate a bit.

1. Your point that the argument at best shows that the universe had a beginning. Actually, the argument from motion isn't about whether the universe had a "beginning" or not; it's about what is needed to account for motion in the here and now. Even if this universe of moved movers were eternal and the stick, dead rate and half-eaten sandwich had been moving around for ever, still the boy would be needed as the mover of all. Aquinas isn't making any argument here about the beginning of the world, etc.

2. Your point that the argument doesn't tell us anything about what caused this beginning, or the motion. It doesn't tell us that this is the God and Father or Jesus Christ, but it's not true at all that it tells us nothing. The argument tells us that this First Mover must be pure actuality with no potentiality that needs to be actualized, the ultimate cause of all movement and change in the universe. It tells us at least that much. And therefore your race of intelligent beings don't fit the bill. As Stevi said, this idea just makes the chain of moved movers a little longer.

3. Your point about it being "laughable" that Aquinas concludes by saying "and this everyone understands to be God"-- how Muslims could say the same thing, or the Egyptians ro Greeks or Hindus. Again, Aquinas would be the first to say that without revelation we cannot know God in any full sense -- just as you could not know me and I could not know you unless we spoke and revealed. But, Aquinas would argue, there are some things we can know from reason alone and this is one of them: that there exists a First Mover who has at least the characteristics described above. That's all he claims to prove with this argument. He doesn't claim to prove that this First Mover is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, etc.

4. Finally, the argument many of the New Atheists like to make, poking fun at arguments for God's existence by saying, "Ah, which god? Is it Atum or Ra or Allah or Zeus?" is really a red herring. Because what we believe is that when the Greeks or Romans called upon their gods, or the Native American's the "Great Spirit" or the Muslims "Allah" or the Egyptians "Atum" they were using whatever names and concepts they had to speak of "God". They were all expressing their sense of the divine, that there is someone out there that is behind all of this. Aquinas is simply saying that whatever ur concept of God, we at least conceive of God as the ultimate explanation of things. And here I've proved that such a being exists. In other places, Aquinas builds on this and seeks to prove by reason that this "Being" must also be all-powerful, all-good, etc. Here he's only arguing for a First Mover.

And it seems like you agree that he has successfully argued that much.

Thanks,
Ken

12/2/2014 10:43:17 am

Thanks for responding Stevi.

I don’t believe the Motion argument gets you to Deism, all I said was AT BEST it gets you to Deism, and on that point we appear to agree. I added the part about other religions could make the same Motion argument for their gods because Aquinas and this blog are both ultimately making an argument for the Christian god. I agree, it’s not really relevant to just the Motion argument itself.

Having said all that, I still assert the argument fails because it doesn’t demonstrate where the Motion came from. Just tacking on "And this everyone understands to be God" doesn’t demonstrate anything. You’ve still got all of your work ahead of you to prove this.

To your second point - What evidence can you offer that demonstrates the existence of an unmoved mover?

Doug Yowell

12/2/2014 02:35:27 am

"...Here he's only arguing for a First Mover. And it seems like you agree that he has successfully argued that much."

Which should render it no laughing matter.

12/2/2014 10:40:00 am

Thank you for your response Ken.

I’ll try not to make us all do too much work here but your response did raise a few questions.

To your first point, I recognize the argument for Motion is not about whether the universe had a "beginning" or not; but I, and apparently Stevi does as well, find the Motion argument relevant and related to the beginning of the universe. I don’t understand how you can separate motion in the “here and now” from motion going back to the beginning of the universe. Isn’t it all a single, for lack of a better term, chain of motion events? Is there a cut-off point somewhere between the motion from the Big Bang and the motion we see in the universe today? Do Catholics not believe in the Big Bang? Please explain.

To your second point, Aquinas’s argument simply tells us at the end there is a First Mover of pure actuality; but it never demonstrates this. Just tacking on "And this everyone understands to be God" doesn’t demonstrate anything.

To your third and fourth point, an appeal to faith in god, any god, isn’t evidence. The very definition of faith is believing without evidence; thus making Aquinas’s appeal to faith not evidence at all for motion in the universe.

The Motion proof for the existence of God from Aquinas’s Summa fails.

Chris

12/3/2014 12:57:26 am

Catholics do, indeed, allow for belief in the Big Bang -- it is not contrary to any teaching of the Church.

Aquinas does not "simply tell us at the end there is a First Mover of pure actuality." The entire argument is present to support this conclusion. Perhaps you could look at the entire argument again before attacking the conclusion? (I'm not trying to insult you, it just seems to me that perhaps you don't have a grasp of the argument as a whole.)

Aquinas does not appeal to faith in regard to motion in the universe. And even it this seems to be the case, can you not observe objectively that there is indeed motion in the universe by taking a quick look around you? This is not based on faith alone, in fact Aquinas makes great effort to argue from reason not just from faith.

The motion proof for the existence of God from St. Aquinas' Summa Theologica does not fail. The entire argument supports the existence of some mover that is utterly in pure act with no potentiality (again, a closer look at the argument may be in order), such a being -- even if it is not the Christian God -- does seem to be worthy of the title of "God".

Perhaps you could explain further why you disagree with the argument specifically, I don't see any reasons you have given to be contrary to the argument itself. If you are looking for a proof that this God is the Christian God, you're in the wrong place, and even Aquinas would agree with that. I'll reiterate what was said before, this is not an argument for faith in the Christian God, it is an argument from reason, not faith, that at least a God necessarily exists.

12/3/2014 09:37:58 am

Thanks for your response Chris.

I recognize the argument is not for a Christian god and that Aquinas was attempting to prove god without an appeal to faith, by using logic alone. I did look at the entire argument, do grasp it as a whole, and I disagree with it primarily because it contains a common logical fallacy known as Special Pleading.

The Special Pleading fallacy is when you make a special exception for whatever you’re arguing for. Aquinas, in his proof, sets the standard “Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another” and then breaks his own standard by arguing “Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other.”

I do have other complaints about the proof but I’ll leave it there for now.

Based on the logical fallacy alone, Aquinas’s Motion argument for the existence of God from fails.

12/3/2014 09:26:50 am

"The Motion proof for the existence of God from Aquinas’s Summa fails."

Scott, do you see the "Motion" as evidence (not proof) of any need of a "First Mover", whatever that Mover might be? Also I'm reluctant to accept your definition of "faith" as you stated above: "The very definition of faith is believing without evidence". Surely you agree that Ken has presented evidence in support of a conclusion he has reached. Whether or not he has interpreted the evidence correctly and thereby reached a reasonable or logical conclusion is another story,no?

12/3/2014 11:56:01 am

Good question Doug.

I don’t know where or how or even if there was a first motion – and I don’t have to – I’m OK with not knowing and I’m not the one making the claim, Aquinas is. The best evidence we have is that the motion we see in the universe today started with energy, not a deity.

What is your definition of Faith?

12/5/2014 07:09:17 am

Hello all,

I think that Chris and Doug have said it well but I'll add my voice and try to be brief for clarity sake:

1. As Chris said, the Big Bang is no problem. I'm not a scientist and don't know the details, but I would have no problem with it.

2. Faith does not mean believing without having evidence and I doubt that any of the original apostles would agree that they had NO EVIDENCE for believing Christ to be divine. They believed precisely because they watched his life and saw what he did -- precisely because of the evidences. Strictly speaking, believing in something without having any evidence or good "reason" for believing would be insanity. We believe precisely BECAUSE we think there are good "reasons" and "evidences". In other words, your definition of faith --- It isn't what Christians mean when they use the word, it's not what the Bible means when using the word, and it's not even how the word is used commonly --for instance when someone says, "I believe that TV show runs at 8:00 on Saturdays". In fact, I would define knowledge as justified true belief. I believe something. It's true. And I have justification for believing it. The definition you've given is an ad hoc definition created by atheists to make believers seem irrational.

3. When you ask what the "evidence" is for there being an Unmoved Mover... well, I'll ask you and you can speak for yourself, but makes me think that maybe you only think of the scientific method (induction, evidences) as being valid? After all, Aquinas has just made a logical argument for the existence of an Unmoved Mover. His argument IS the proof. If I present to you a logical syllogism where the premises are true and the conclusion follows logically, you don't normally respond, "OK, but where's your evidence." Everything isn't science.

4. It's not special pleading because he doesn't say that EVERYTHING moves (so that you could then say, "OK, so why doesn't God move?").

5. Matter/energy can't be the Unmoved Mover because it, like everything else we see in the material world, is a combination of potentiality and actuality. The Unmoved Mover must be pure act. And again, Aquinas doesn't present "evidence" for this; he presents a logical proof.

Thanks

Doug

12/5/2014 12:31:54 pm

"The best evidence we have is that the motion we see in the universe today started with energy"

But scientifically and philosophically the only evidence that we have available is that every other energy had a previous "mover" (energy source) so where did that "energy" come from is sort of the question being addressed isn't it?You say you don't care but are quick to state an opposing conclusion without offering any supporting evidence.Is there anything in Ken's scientific data about "movers" that you find scientifically or logically unprovable?

"Faith is defined as confidence or trust in a person, thing, deity, view, or in the doctrines or teachings of a religion, as well as confidence based on some degree of warrant.[1][2] It can also be belief that is not based on proof.[3] The word faith is often used as a synonym for hope,[4] trust,[5] or belief."

I hope you don't mind if I quote from the infallible word of Wikipedia regarding the definition of faith. Yes, faith can sometimes be a belief in that which does not exist. Charlie Brown believes that Lucy will hold the football steady for him on his next try. But more often it is the first definition that most of us humans live by every day, like you may have faith that your wife will love you tomorrow even though tomorrow does not exist. Do you think you'd be open to expanding your definition of faith?
In his presentation Ken,aka, Thomas Aquinas, provided evidence for the conclusion he (they) reached. That doesn't prove the conclusion true but it IS legitimate evidence.Even Sherlock Holmes would find this evidence trail challenging.

12/7/2014 08:00:29 am

Thanks for responding Doug.

I don’t know where the energy in the universe came from. All I’m saying is that the best evidence we have is that the motion we see in the universe today started with energy, not a deity.

By the way, I think Aquinas gets Motion wrong because of his 13th century understanding of the universe. (Doug, Ken, anyone, please correct me here if I’m wrong) but Aquinas believed in a geocentric universe “proofed” info existence by god in its current form with the Earth at the center and the moon, planets and starts moving around us. If you didn’t know about the Big Bang then it makes more sense to argue that the motion we see in the universe today started with some prime mover. The moon didn’t start spinning itself right?

I think your right. I should expand my definition of faith to include “bad evidence.” I don’t think there’s anything incompatible with my new definition “believing in something based on bad evidence or no evidence” with the definition of faith you provided.

I agree that logic can be used as evidence; but logic alone is an unreliable path to truth. Logic alone can prove pigs fly. Logic combined with scientific evidence is the most reliable path to the truth.

12/7/2014 07:01:48 am

Thanks for responding Ken.

On your first point, does the Catholic Church have an official position on the Big Bang? Is it accepted?

On your second point, I agree with much of what you said. Correct me if I’m wrong, but you never defined faith. You seem to define knowledge. Are you sating they are the same? Can you please give me your definition of faith?

Based on your last three points, I don't think you understood the Special Pleading fallacy. You said “It's not special pleading because he doesn't say that EVERYTHING moves (so that you could then say, "OK, so why doesn't God move?").” The fallacy has nothing to do with god not moving. It’s exactly the opposite. The fallacy occurs at the end when god’s motion is “put in motion by no other” after setting the standard “whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another.” A special exception (or pleading) is being made for what Aquinas is arguing for. It’s like setting a standard “everything requires ice” while arguing for X and then saying “X doesn’t require ice.” This is a Special Pleading fallacy.

Looking back at the syllogism with 21st century knowledge, even if you disagree with the Special Pleading fallacy, it still fails. It makes a false premise about motion. It makes a false premise about infinity, and his definition of God at the end it so vacuous that it’s indistinguishable from nothing.

If Aquinas’s logical syllogism, as you say, IS the proof for the existence of God (with no evidence required), then you have to logically conclude there is no God.

12/7/2014 01:32:49 pm

Scott, perhaps you missed the point? This is not a Special Pleading fallacy because Aquinas does not claim that God is in motion; he claims that "whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another", but God can be said to be "put in motion by no other" because he was never in motion, he has always been in a state of actuality, not needing motion from potentiality to actuality -- which is why this cannot be energy or matter... because energy and matter are always in states of what could be said to be nearly infinite potentiality.

I'll start here and not try to address everything at once, please let me know what further clarification is needed. I'm here to help you, and perhaps you can help me to come to a better understanding of this argument as well. Thank you for your time and persistence.

12/7/2014 06:00:45 pm

Thanks Chris. I appreciate your response. That’s the best defense I’ve heard for the Special Pleading fallacy but it think the argument still fails.

In the 3rd sentence of the translation above, Aquinas asserts “Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another…” therefore God must have been put in motion by another. The argument still fails based on Special Pleading.

I also think the argument fails for other reasons but I appreciate the focus on the Special Pleading fallacy.

12/7/2014 06:05:47 pm

Yet the point seems to remain that the object of the argument is one that is not, nor ever was, in motion, so God would not have been moved by another -- whatever this God is (existence itself, God the Father, the universe, the force, etc.)

12/7/2014 01:42:52 pm

Here is this in addition, retrieved from catholic.com which is a great source for what the Church actually teaches on various questions about the faith if you are interested.

The Catholic Church has always taught that "no real disagreement can exist between the theologian and the scientist provided each keeps within his own limits. . . . If nevertheless there is a disagreement . . . it should be remembered that the sacred writers, or more truly ‘the Spirit of God who spoke through them, did not wish to teach men such truths (as the inner structure of visible objects) which do not help anyone to salvation’; and that, for this reason, rather than trying to provide a scientific exposition of nature, they sometimes describe and treat these matters either in a somewhat figurative language or as the common manner of speech those times required, and indeed still requires nowadays in everyday life, even amongst most learned people" (Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus 18).

As the Catechism puts it, "Methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things the of the faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are" (CCC 159). The Catholic Church has no fear of science or scientific discovery.

12/7/2014 06:02:58 pm

Thanks for this Chris.

12/8/2014 08:02:44 am

Thanks Chris.

You say "Yet the point seems to remain that the object of the argument is one that is not, nor ever was, in motion, so God would not have been moved by another -- whatever this God is (existence itself, God the Father, the universe, the force, etc.)"

I’m not sure if this is what Aquinas is arguing but you say god “is not, nor ever was, in motion.” How can something in a state of actuality not be, nor ever was, in motion?

12/8/2014 12:09:37 am

Scott,

1. The Belgian Catholic priest Fr Georges Lemaitre is the father of the Big Bang theory. The Church does not tend to "officially" pronounce on scientific theories as it's job is to preserve and transmit the teaching of Christ and his apostles, but it has no issue with the Big Bang.

2. Chris answered your claim about special pleading: The argument is that (a) things are moving from potentiality to actuality, (b) nothing moves itself from potentiality to actuality, (c) there cannot be an infinite series of moved movers because in a series which is ordered per se (essentially ordered) if you remove the first mover the entire series stops, (d) therefore there must be at bottom a Mover who is NOT itself moved, in whom there is no potentiality that needs to be actualized. So how is special pleading involved here?

3. You say the argument makes a "false premise" about motion and about infinity. What are these false premises?

4. "and his [Aquinas's] definition of God at the end it so vacuous that it’s indistinguishable from nothing." I'm sorry, but you continue to attack without understanding first what is being said. Aquinas isn't "defining" God at all. His argument is that there must be a first mover which is itself unmoved. That's the argument.

At the end he simply tags on the observation that this is, at least in part, what we mean when we use the word God. When we talk about God we at least mean a being who started it all and moves it and yet doesn't himself have to be moved. This isn't a part of his argument and he could have left it off entirely.

3. Are you really claiming that arguments that are philosophical in nature and logical aren't any good unless they are combined with "evidence"?

4. "If Aquinas’s logical syllogism, as you say, IS the proof for the existence of God (with no evidence required), then you have to logically conclude there is no God." You set up a straw man by exaggerating what Aquinas (and Christians) claim for this argument. The argument from motion is not "the proof for the existence of God" --- Aquinas listed it as "one of the ways" of arguing for God's existence, by arguing for the existence of an Unmoved Mover. If you accept the conclusion that an Unmoved Mover exists then you have to ask yourself what qualifies to be that Unmoved Mover. How can matter/energy qualify when it exists in a state of near infinite potentiality?, as Christ pointed out above. If want to say that matter/energy is the bottom line, then you have no Unmoved Mover but rather an infinite series of moved movers, but Aquinas argued that this kind of infinite series is impossible. So you need to show how he's wrong about that -- that there can simply be an infinite series of moved movers. Instead of defining faith for us or talking about Aquinas's tag line --- "and this is what we mean when we speak of God" -- you should focus on showing us how the premises of the argument fail.

thanks!

12/8/2014 01:21:12 pm

Thanks Ken. I’m starting to feel like a guy who walked down a dark alley and just realized he’s outnumbered.

Addressing your last point first, you claim I’m setting up a Straw Man argument by exaggerating what Aquinas (and Christians) claim and the argument from motion is not proof for the existence of God, just for the existence of an Unmoved Mover.

I’ll let Aquinas himself explain why you’re wrong. First, before starting any of his Five Way arguments, Aquinas states “The existence of God can be proved in five ways.” That’s pretty clear evidence Aquinas is arguing for the existence of God. Second, he states in the argument from Motion that the First Mover “everyone understands to be God.” Again, pretty clear to me he’s arguing for the existence of God. No straw man here.

You also accuse me of not focusing on showing you how the premises of the argument fail. That’s not fair. That’s exactly what I’ve been trying to do with the Special Pleading fallacy.

No, I’m not saying arguments that are philosophical in nature and logical aren't any good unless they are combined with evidence. I’m saying logical arguments alone are not as reliable as arguments combined with scientific evidence.

Before we get into matter/energy, infinity, and other problems with the Motion argument, let’s stay with the Special Pleading fallacy for a moment. I think we’re making progress. I do have a question for clarification. Are motion and actuality the same or are they different?

Thank you Ken.

12/9/2014 03:57:51 am

For clarification, it seems that the confusion comes from how something could be in actuality without motion, but the two are certainly not the same. Motion is how something in potentiality reaches actuality, and to be in actuality is to no longer be in motion. But what Aquinas claims is that there must exist something which was never in a state of potentiality, and always in a state of actuality, never having been in or needing motion, but rather being the first cause of all motion -- this is the conclusion he arrives at from his grasp on the idea of infinities, where the chain of moved movers cannot regress to infinity and this concept is not inaccurate, it has in fact been proved by mathematics that this sort of infinity cannot exist. I think it is clear from this why he said "this everyone understands to be God" as nothing else seems to have this quality other than what we might call God.

12/8/2014 12:58:27 am

"I think your right. I should expand my definition of faith to include “bad evidence.” I don’t think there’s anything incompatible with my new definition “believing in something based on bad evidence or no evidence” with the definition of faith you provided."

I'm not certain from your response that you actually read the Wiki definition which did not originate from a theistic perspective, Ken's Old World Dictionary, or my own creative lack of genius. I think we all would agree with your inclusion of "bad evidence" but how bout agreeing Wiki's with "confidence based on some degree of warrant"? If one simply passes off all evidence which contradicts their own conclusion as being "bad evidence" then no evidence can ever be introduced to the contrary. Even high profile legal trials often argue different conclusions from the same evidence. Are you willing to expand a little more in order to let Wikipedia's definition of faith be reasonable?

12/8/2014 08:29:05 am

Thanks Doug.

I agree with much of what you said and I do accept the Wiki definition in general terms; but (and perhaps I didn’t make this clear), I’m using my definition of faith to describe faith in terms of religion. I’ve been asking (perhaps not specifically enough) for anyone’s definition of religious faith, in particular, a Catholic definition of faith. Can you give me your definition of faith in terms of religion?

12/9/2014 03:47:31 am

Perhaps no one has given you a definition because it is a very complex idea. I, for one, am not sure I could think up a definition that would suit the word, but I came across this -- http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05752c.htm -- which provides a thorough explanation of what faith is to Catholics. I hope this is helpful.

12/24/2014 01:30:03 am

Scott@ "I’m starting to feel like a guy who walked down a dark alley and just realized he’s outnumbered."

Don't worry, we all just came from a Bible study. We're actually your bodyguards. Merry Christmas!

1/7/2015 12:15:19 am

"Can you give me your definition of faith in terms of religion?"

It's a fair question as the definition of "faith" is often used by those who do not understand it's full meaning. I'm no articulate Ken but I would have to define "faith" in the Biblical genre in a different way that "faith" is most generally attributed to religion. Christian "faith" is directly connected to evidences which directly tie in to the human experience. It follows the definition given by Wiki and other dictionaries that require some form of evidence. It defies the human experience to "believe" that there exists nothing greater than what they can intellectually speculate on. The Christian religion is not attempting to "prove" that God exists, it offers evidences for all to experiment with in order to have "faith" that He exists. Ken is merely offering one of those "evidences" which appeals to the reasoning power of his readers. In this definition reason helps inform "faith" it is not "faith" apart form reason. Many other "religions" offer "evidences" which contradict both reason and human experience (not to mention many other things).That was probably too long of an answer, sorry.

apologia