Aquinas' First Way (Proofs for the Existence of God)

This is an explanation of the classical argument for the existence of God known as the argument from motion. It is the first of Thomas' Aquinas' five ways of proving the existence of God, or the unmoved mover.

For further information about these arguments, check out the following books:

[danielfawcett]

Lutherans need to interact with medieval stuff more! Please keep it up!

[mikebaker]

This misunderstood Thomistic argument about the universe of potential continually sustained by God is echoed in one of Erwin Schroedinger's philosophical arguments against hard materialism (much to the chagrin of his colleagues and all the freshman atheists who love putting zombie cats on their ironic T-shirts).

Schroedinger's inevitable conclusion to his famous thought experiment is to apply the principle of observation from quantum theory in the same way Aquinas handles Aristotelian motion: that since all potential states must be observed in order for them to be fixed in space-time, the universe must have an omniscient consciousness looking out on all things to sustain its manifestation from all potential possibilities.

...the unobserved observer to Aquinas' unmoved mover, if you will.

[aaronmick]

For anyone actually trying to bust out some homework in college: he starts explaining at exactly 2:23. np.

[jamesmichaelgilbert]

Please continue with all of his 5 ways! Its hard to grasp/remember his arguments. They are generally not explained very well. But you did a fine job, thank you!

Perhaps you could create the argument to be viewed in a wordy propositional logic?

[provitax]

The principle that says that everything that moves is moved by another is strictly universal, that is, it has no exceptions, because God does not move, He does not pass from potency to act, because He is Pure Act.

[Jmb]

I would also argue the point of perpetual motion in your train car anology. Doesn't exist with out some type of force. Gravity because of a hill for instance. This is not to argue against what you are saying. Just an added argument to support what you are saying. Eventually the power/force is going to end.

[mickydebarge]

Loved this. The train analogy was simple to understand.

[renzorodrigodelaquintanabe]

Hi professor, wath about a plurality of "firts movers" in mutual interaction? Thanks.

[lc-mschristian]

Truly enjoy this encyclopedia video series! Thanks. God's peace be with you

[gorequillnachovidal]

To me this is the ultimate argument one would have to counter to get rid of their having to be what we call God. Also, you should include why God is the uncreated creator (and why he does not need to be created) to really finish this argument.

[GirolamoZanchi_is_cool]

And you will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart. -Jeremiah 29:13

“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish, but have eternal life. -John 3:16

Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out.
-Acts 3:19

[GirolamoZanchi_is_cool]

Heretical prayer: O Mother of Perpetual Help, thou art the dispenser of all the gifts which God grants to us miserable sinners; and for this end He has made thee so powerful, so rich, and so bountiful, in order that thou mayest help us in our misery. Thou art the advocate of the most wretched and abandoned sinners who have recourse to thee: come to my aid, for I recommend myself to thee.

In thy hands I place my eternal salvation, and to thee I entrust my soul. Count me among thy most devoted servants; take me under thy protection, and it is enough for me. For, if thou protect me, I fear nothing; not from my sins, because thou wilt obtain for me the pardon of them; nor from the devils, because thou art more powerful than all hell together; nor even from Jesus, my judge, because by one prayer from thee He will be appeased.

But one thing I fear: that in the hour of temptation I may through negligence fail to have recourse to thee and thus perish miserably. Obtain for me, therefore, the pardon of my sins, love for Jesus, final perseverance, and the grace ever to have recourse to thee, O Mother of Perpetual Help.

This is a legit Roman Catholic prayer, look up "O Mother of Perpetual Help" if you want to know if it’s legit.
This is super heretical. This doctrine of invoking departed saints doesn’t seem just like "hey it’s like praying to a friend.".

.

[saimbhat]

These arguments are taken from philosophers in islamic spain. You should know that much pastor. lol

[vgovger]

The first way is motion, your mixing the first and second way together?

[roejoshua]

I love how over time Science has evolved and shown that things Christians and Jews have believed because of what is written in the Bible has been proved through science such as the Big Bang Theory proving the Universe came into being rather than existing infinitely

[noahdanielg]

What is Jordan's opinion on Anglicanism?

[mikebaker]

I apologize for the length of this comment, but it is a pitch for a conversation (and I hope a future video) about a similar Thomistic topic I am interested in:

One of the topics from medieval philosophy that I'd like to see a video on is the concept of Love. I would love to hear Pr Cooper's summary of it and how it influenced pre-Reformation theology, the Reformation debate surrounding "Faith Alone" versus "Faith with Love", and any Lutheran scholastic perspectives that came after.

Just as in this idea of Movement in creation, Thomas Aquinas has this interesting (and in some ways helpful) description of Love as essential to the human action. It seems that he applies love as essential to all human action. Even when sinning, Aquinas seems to point out that the sinner does the sin because he loves the wrong thing or loves a good thing in the in the wrong proportion. Certainly at least the foundation of this idea is scriptural as the love of money is the root of many evils, etc. God is love and it seems to me that the medieval theologans considered love to be at least a part of the imago dei. Certainly in the mystical traditions, this divine love in human nature was considered to be in some way intact and functional even after the Fall. I wonder to what degree did these kinds of ideas influenced the debate going into the Reformation.

We also have these kinds of ideas about love continue in the reformers. We have John Calvin's famous "man's nature is an idol factory" where the Biblical argument is asserted that man's sin is in the heart where he sinfully loves things instead of God. We also have the Formula of Concord Epitome 3.11:

"We believe, teach, and confess that, although the contrition that precedes, and the good works that follow, do not belong to the article of justification before God, yet one is not to imagine a faith of such a kind as can exist and abide with, and alongside of, a wicked intention to sin and to act against the conscience. But after man has been justified by faith, then a true living faith worketh by love, Gal. 5:6, so that thus good works always follow justifying faith, and are surely found with it, if it be true and living; for it never is alone, but always has with it love and hope."

The limited research I have done of Luther commentators on the subject has given me a fairly mixed picture of Martin Luther's philosophical categories for Love (similar to the kinds of classification debates mentioned in the "Was Martin Luther a Nominalist" video.) There certainly isn't anything close to agreement on what role Love plays in Luther's theology or philosophy. There probably should be or we should at least seek to understand the subject better than we do.

I think the Lutheran church would benefit greatly from more discussion on this topic of Love.

First, from our youth, we say we are to "Fear and Love God" in explanations of every commandment of the of the Small Catechism (save the First to which we add "Trust") but I don't think I've ever heard a Lutheran sufficiently define Love in any depth without just conflating it with "fear" or "faith". Nagging at the back of my head is that if these three terms (Fear, Love, Trust) are to be essentially the same abstract thing among us why would Luther bother to distinctly name them and why would Scripture call Love the greatest gift of the Spirit [1 Cor 13:13]?

Second, Lutherans are often accused (perhaps rightly in many circumstances) to be "weak on sanctification". I think the loss of Love as a recognized category in our various uses of the Law (whenever that loss occurred) is partly to blame. This might be a chicken-egg problem as misunderstandings of the role of Love seem so central to the Sola debates of the Reformation, which causes us to not talk about it beyond framing what we historically opposed, which causes us to not fully understand it as a category, which causes us to further deemphasize it or even go so far as to not want to even bring it up in any theological conversation, etc.

Third, opponents to particular orthodox Christian teachings often use "love" as their main argument against particular historic doctrines of the faith that they disagree with (there are so many topics that this falls under that I am not hinting at any particular one). It seems that a robust definition of the right understanding of love would help us address that.

Fourth, in my own life and when giving what feeble advice I have to others, it seems like this construct of Love from Aquinas is fairly insightful as it is the love of the wrong things or in the wrong proportion that often provides the most powerful temptation to give in to sin and motivates us to seek to justify ourselves by way of some unique exception to the Law because of a particular love that we have. It seems to me like this Thomistic category, in its most narrow sense where it is still grounded in scripture, is a helpful category for self examination.

Finally, Love is such a central aspect of the life of each Christian that it seems odd that it is rarely discussed in any systematic depth among Lutherans.

I apologize that this went from a "make a video" YouTube Comment, to a blog post, to a dissertation, to a full on rambling, to a TL;DR. :P

[sandromnator]

Didn't Luther himself hate Aquinas and Scholasticism?

[reformedcatholic]

Being Reformed, I use presuppositional apologetics. But I do like the motion argument.

[frosted]

But so easily dismissed.. argument isn't evidence.
Also, you might want to actually take a basic physics course and learn about force.. not exactly as mysterious as Aquinas thought.