Question

Consider the following passage:

The first and most manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain and evident to our senses that some things are in motion. Whatever is in motion is moved by another.... For 'motion' means the reduction of something from a state of potentiality into a state of actuality. But a thing can be reduced from a state of potentiality into a state of actuality only by something already in a state of actuality.... It is impossible for the same thing should be simultaneously in a state of actuality and potentiality from the same point of view, but only from different points of view.... Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another, and that by another again. This cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other movers--since subsequent movers only move insofar as they are put in motion by the first mover.... Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

The following question has 2 parts:

Please formalize the argument presented in this passage.
Please present your one best criticism of the argument presented in the passage

Answer 1

PART 1

The given lines are taken from Thomas Aquinas arguments. Thomas Aquinas was a theologian and a Scholastic philosopher who had laid out the infamous five arguments for the existence of God.

He had characterized one of the first arguments as “the first and more manifest way.”

This argument is a proof from motion, which can be summarized as follows:

In this world, All Things move. Since nothing can move itself, everything that is being moved must typically be moved by another.

Thomas says that when something is being moved, it is being moved by and due to something else .He further states that nothing by itself, can move on its own.

He gives us an example about the fire wood.

He says that “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.”

By this he states that something that is actually hot, such as the fire, is ‘potentially’ hot, and it burns the wood, this quality to be actually hot, which helps it to move and changes the wood to burn (Being hot)

He goes on to say that things cannot be potentially hot and actually hot at the very same time.

He relates this argument to motion and says that it is not at all possible for something at once to be both the mover and the moved .

(i.e., If something were to move itself, then, whatever that is to be moved, must be moved by another).

Now, when something is moved, he argues that it is moved by another and that in turn is moved by another again, but he also says that this cycle cannot go on till infinity.

Thomas clearly states that, if the thing which causes the motion is itself being moved, then it inturn must be being moved by another thing. But the thing is that, this very process cannot go on to infinity.He says this cannot go on to infinity because then there would be no first mover, This means there would be no other mover after that, hence stating that subordinate movers would only move as much as something else moves it.

He goes on to conclude his first argument stating that “it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, moved by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.”

Therefore, Aquinas declares that there must exist a first unmoved mover, which all people refer to as God.

So we can summarize that , Aquinas’ first way argument is based on motion.

His first argument tries to prove the very existence of God as the first mover,
which himself, is unmoved. Thomas says that an object in motion tends to be put into motion by some other object or some other force. The clarity of this argument, is based on the belief that motion is considered as a reduction of something from potentiality to actuality.
  

PART 2

Upon reading the passage, Thomas Aquinas arguments can be broken down into four parts; which are as follows:

(1) some things are in motion;

(2) nothing can move itself;

(3) whatever is moved, is moved by another; and

(4) one moving thing is moved by a prior moving thing, and that by a prior one, and so forth…but this cannot go on to infinity.

Let us critically analyze each of these arguments one by one.

In his first statement Thomas says that,

‘some things are in motion’ ,

this statement is kind of agreeable,as it is quiet indisputable that everything that we look at is in motion. As everything is made up of molecules, which are always tend to be moving.

Next, in the second statement, he states that,

‘nothing can move itself’,

Now, this statement is kind of questionable.

Upon verifying with Newton physics’ laws, which go on to state that an object will tend to remain in constant uniform motion unless or until it is acted on by a force.

In the third statement, he says that,

‘whatever is moved, is moved by another’,

this statement is also kind of closely related to the second statement and its explanation is also given above.

Lastly, in his fourth statement,

'one moving thing is moved by a prior moving thing, and that by a prior one, and so forth…but this cannot go on to infinity’

can be explained to us by The Principle of Sufficient Reason which can be explained as follows: The Principle of Sufficient Reason explains that there must be an explanation for everything that is happening or which has happened.

Regarding our question relating to Aquinas’ first argument is “why is there a presence of motion in this world?” now, If we go on to include this question, then when we state that there has to be a first unmoved mover and we tend to accept this mover as God, is not quiet the proof of the existence of God.

On the contrary, it is just a proof that, it is necessary to have a first, unmoved mover in sync with the laws of motion and physics.

But, This first, unmoved mover doesn’t actually tend to possess any of the given attributes that we tend to give to God.

It is further not clearly mentioned that this first, unmoved mover is all powerful,merciful, all knowing, perfect, eternal or self sufficient.

It would kind of make sense if the first, unmoved mover did possess these given attributes, but it is not clearly stated, which puts Aquinas argument at an disadvantage.

So, Concluding this argument, Thomas Aquinas is trying to make a point that God must exist inorder to explain how everything else exists in this world.He tries to prove the very existence of God. Thomas finds it quiet necessary for the existence of a God, as he believes, without there being a God, almost everything in this world would be considerably left to be unexplained.

Aquinas belief in God comes out of a necessity because it tends to give him hope that someone is protecting , watching over him , caring about him and will guide everybody towards humanity.