[Serious] Criticism of Aquinas' First Way or of the Proof of God from Motion.

[Belacqua]

Moderator Notice
Post deleted. Copy/pasting what you have written for a different forum is considered spam. Please familiarize yourself with the rules.

I think that this forum isn't likely to work well for such a careful and detailed discussion. It's not the sort of thing that goes on here. 

If you were to break down one or two of the criticisms as an introduction, there is a chance that conversation might develop from there. For example your idea that there's no reason to think a Prime Mover doesn't itself have to be unmovable is something that I haven't worked on before, and could be a starting place. 

I respect what you're doing and admire the understanding you show of the issues.

Here is a reply I started typing, before you were so rudely interrupted:

spirit-salamander
Ben Shapiro calmly EDUCATED by Stephen Woodford

It's sad that Aristotle or Aquinas have to be in any way associated with Shapiro, who is terrible.

"What at first seemed to be a simple proof is in fact a world view in miniature, an image of the world projected onto half a page. Is it a proof of God's existence which, taken by itself, compels assent, quite independent of what we may think of Thomas' metaphysics or the remainder of his System? Definitely not." (Walter Kaufmann - Critique of Religion and Philosophy)

From Shapiro to Kaufmann is from the ridiculous to the sublime.

I'd be interested to see where Kaufmann goes from there. As I understand it, the Five Ways were never intended to be stand-alone proofs, so what Kaufmann says here is true without necessarily being criticism. Each of the ways is a sort of summary of a much larger way of thinking, for which we need many additional arguments. Modern people tend to imagine they're supposed to be persuasive as they stand, which they aren't and weren't intended to be.

But your explication here shows that you know this already, I think, because you are working at the assumptions and conclusions that are required to draw a conclusion, and I respect that.