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

[Neo-Scholastic]

@Neo-Scholastic

I think he also posted it here. Might be different but at least parts of it are the same.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussio...-motion/p1

That looks the same. At least it starts out the same.

Thanks for posting that. I look forward to working on it.

The earlier tangent about making comparisons between ancient and modern knowledge was interesting. Brian was misdirecting his ire, but nevertheless raised a valid concern. It is indeed often an error to see modern concepts foreshowed in ancient or medieval thought. As many forum old-timers know, it is common for a poster to claim that their scripture predicts something scientific, such as the suggestion that the bible predicts gravitational theory in Job 26:7. A similar error applies in reverse though- the tendency to dismiss ancient knowledge as if it was flawed simply because it does not share the same concerns of thinkers in modern and post-modern eras.

At the same time, I cannot help but wonder when one classical solution to the problem of infinite regress, proposing an fundamental unit of reality, bears superficial similarity to the modern concept of a quanta, the smallest unit of measurement. Am I seeing a Gettier case of lucky guessing or perhaps two different descriptive narratives about the same underlying reality? Or is any comparison invalid? Classical philosophy and modern natural science may take completely different approaches to causality but that doesn't mean they will always be at odds.