Posted: Aug 04, 2017 6:03 pm
proudfootz wrote:
IIRC Aquinas claims the 'first mover' is 'put in motion':
"it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other"
Which is a contradiction to this premise in the argument:
"Only an actual motion can convert a potential motion into an actual motion"
So this hypothetical 'first mover' can only impart motion by being in motion itself, and no motion can occur without a previous motion.
A few moments of reflection shows that Aquinas has fatally undermined his own position.Among the problems with this trying to turn a god into an abstraction is that once it is removed far enough from reality there's no sense in which it can impact reality.
The concept of an unmoved mover is paradoxical but, as Aquinas showed, it necessarily must exist to explain the motion we see.
Aquinas may have claimed something. But that is a long way from showing anything.
An unmoved mover is not so much a 'paradox' as it is a self-refuting idea.
There seems to be a lack of scientific precision in this debate, starting with Aquinas, who failed to state whether an exploding, static object was "in motion". Looking at the position of its centre of gravity, you would say it was still static, but looking at its individual components, you would say they were newly in motion.