Thomas Aquinas and the First Mover Argument

Some things in the universe are in motion; maybe you are right now, your heart certainly is. Every motion was caused by something else. But how, or who, first caused the universe to come into existence? Gillian Anderson breaks down Thomas Aquinas’ theory.

Narrated by Gillian Anderson. Scripted by Nigel Warburton.

This project is from the BBC in partnership with The Open University, the animations were created by Cognitive.

[reznet]

Thomas Aquinas never argued that God 'moved himself' but that God himself is pure actuality and has no potency. God never changes because he is perfect so there's no need to 'move himself'. Being perfect just means that there is no potency, it just is.

[pacopiedad]

This was like a summary of a summary of Aquinas. It's a total misrepresentation of his argument, actually. I appreciate the visuals and the effort into making the video, but it seems like the task of actually understanding the argument was severely neglected

[tadm]

The last question shows that this person doesn't understand Thomas Aquinas.

[jesswoods]

I had to watch this for my class and all of the comments are saying it’s wrong.

[TheGeneralGrievous]

There are many very relevant issues with this video. First - to understand Five Ways one must now at least a little bit about Aristotelian and Thomistic metaphysics. This is needed to understand what words like 'actuality', 'poteniality', 'motion' etc. mean. Second - Five Ways in Summa Theologica are just summaries of what Aquinas speaks of further in the book and in his other works. Five Ways are deductive metaphicical demonstrations not inductive reasonings, coming from the first principles. There is nothing about this stuff in this video.

Going forward - Aquinas speaks of motion as change. He does not posit that everything changes. But just that there are things that change. So conclusion about Prime Mover being unchanged is not begging the question. Change means going from potential state to actual. This does not mean regress going back in time and we are not speaking about 'beginnigs'. Time here is irrelevant as well as current scientific theories. We are talking about the fact that here and now we need Prime Mover to explain motion happening now. We speak about essentialy ordered series when every element is dependent on previous one. We are talking here also about such things like motion of our body being dependent on motion of organs being dependent on motion of cells, being dependent on motion of particles etc.

Change is here something like a power in computer. You need First Mover to terminate regress because from where the actuality that enable it came from? Just like you cannot explain electrical power in computer just by apeal to infinate cable - you need a power-plant (remeber that it is an analogy). No matter how many intermidiate changers we have we still need First Changer. And He must be unchangable and be Pure Act - meaning He would not have any potentiality in him to actualize. Because if he would not be Pure Act He could be actualized and therefore would need again external source of power to act.

Moving further - it follows that Pure Act must be simple (because complexity requires differences and therefore potentials and would not be First Mover), eternal (because Pure Act cannot begin to exist or cease to exist - therefore always exists), all powerful (because pure actuality means you can actualize anything including bringing into existance anything) etc.

Questions about possibility of infinite regress are missing a point - as Aquinas never talked about such thing in his arguments and 'who caused God' makes no sense here if we now that not everything must have a cause and that God is Pure Act - therefore is not caused by anything, but just is. Even atheists like Michael Rouse agree that such objection is absurd no matter what theistic arguments from motion, casuality or contingency you take into account.

I recommend 'Thomistic Institute' channel on YT and Edward Feser's "The Last Superstition" to read about this topics in more detail but still approachable for begginers.

[JudgeSabo]

This is terrible. Aquinas didn't argue that God moved Himself, he argued that the first  move is an "unmoved mover". He clearly states in the Summa that nothing can move itself, and this is true even of God.

[AdamKinunen]

What caused the uncaused Cause? That's your zinger at the end? It's only an awkward question because it shows that you have not understood Aquinas' First Mover Argument.

[spilkafurtseva]

This video completely misunderstands the argument. Aquinas states in the argument that indeed we cannot prove the universe had a beginning in time (temporal causal chains) but rather that in the here and now, there must necessarily be something that gives us our existence. So for eg. a paintbrush can’t paint by itself even if it had an infinitely long handle, and similiarly, even if we say “the rock moves because it’s pushed by a stick and I’m pushing the stick” but we must then say how we push the stick. Ok so, “my hand is moved by my muscles and my muscles by the motion of my heart pumping blood which is moved by molecules moved by atoms etc etc.” and eventually you get to the point where further explanation is not possible. But even more importantly, before we even postulate this causal chain in the present, it stands to reason that there must be something whose essence and existence are identical (i.e. that which is existence itself which “all men call God”). Aquinas himself says that everything that is contingent (relies on the source of existence from external to itself) is moved by another (which necessarily rules out God as he is not contingent necessarily). Anyway, this video was very poorly presented and clearly aims to present a distorted version of Aquinas’ theory to further a philosophical position of atheism.

[andrewprahst]

You completely cut out the part where he deduces the qualities of God without presupposing his existence.
0/10

[ob]

"Besides, saying that the winner of the race, the guy who came before everyone else, was John, just leaves the awkward question: who came before John?"

[joyfulbellyayurveda]

Aquinas did not argue for a first mover in the past. He argues that any change in movement of a thing requires a first mover now. Check out the difference between a accidental and essentially ordered series for more detail.

[theunnecessitarian]

The prime mover argument talks about the ontological movement of potency to act. Which has only a passing relationship to temporal events like the domino chain – Aquinus himself admitted that the universe could have always existed.

Nor does it have anything to do with mechanistic efficient causes. Thus the argument certainly isn't about is God reaching into the universe to push things about to get them moving...

Whether it is ultimately true or not is of course open to debate.

[BrianKemple]

Wow... this horrifically butchers Thomas Aquinas' argument.  God is not moved at all, neither by Himself nor by another.  As the more extensive treatment of the argument from motion, found in Summa Contra Gentiles Book I, chapter 13, explicitly states, God is the Unmoved Mover.

Did the producers of this segment do any research at all?

[colinmontgomery]

And, then, the atheist goes, "Ha! I've got you!", and congratulates themselves, without realizing they haven't even begun to seriously examine the Aquinas argument.

[alternatives]

that's super close to what Socrates (Plato) said in Faidros, in order to explain why the soul is immortal

[tomgrissom]

If God is Eternal...then God is outside of Cause and Effect, since this happens in Time/Space. Therefore, God doesn’t need a Cause...

[jamespennell]

This video showcases a complete and utter ignorance of Aquinas's argument. Horrible representation of what serious theists actually believe.

[knowledgedesk]

1:24 you got wrong hear Aristotle and perhaps aquinas wasn't talking about movement in time but about dependence of one motion onto another. Time is irrelevant here because Aristotle believed in eternity of universe

[CMVMic]

Motion is an absolute. Time is the illusion. Motion never began, just as time never began. Time only appears to have a beginning due to our Observable Universe but the Entire Universe never began. It is an eternal moving substance.

[cellomon]

1:05 is flat out wrong; Aquinas never claimed that the first mover moved itself. Just the opposite in fact (hence the "unmoved" bit in "unmoved mover")