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

[Neo-Scholastic]

I would have liked to read the OP. Personally, I am saddened that a serious discussion about the merits of the 5W was cancelled by justifably zealous and strict application of a valued rule. Hopefully the writer will heed earlier advice to properly introduce him or herself and start threads with greater bevity.

[Belacqua]

I would have liked to read the OP. Personally, I am saddened that a serious discussion about the merits of the 5W was cancelled by justifably zealous and strict application of a valued rule. Hopefully the writer will heed earlier advice to properly introduce him or herself and start threads with greater bevity.

It was the best set of arguments against the First Way that I've ever seen. In fact, it was the first argument I've seen on the Internet against it that actually understands what the First Way is. Most times people argue against some strange mistaken version.

It would have been nice to have a chance to work on it. If newcomers who are serious were made to feel welcome it would improve the quality of the discussion.

[vulcanlogician]

@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

[Belacqua]

@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.

[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.

[Neo-Scholastic]

On first blush, this seems to be the critical paragraph from the post in the other forum:

To sum up: Lamont, following Peter Geach, tries to show that Aquinas's proofs for the existence of God can be construed as a valid composition argument. I have argued that insofar as we can reduce the Five Ways to a composition argument, such an argument in no way yields the desired conclusion. The failure of Lamont's attempt is explained by the fact that he makes the proof of God's existence into a deductively valid composition argument only by begging the question with respect to the fundamental issue, namely, that the sum of all effects is really a group in need of a singular cause different from the causes of any of the effects of which it is the aggregate.

Personally, seems more like an analogy failure than a logical one. I would take the approach that since the God the Philosophers is both imminent and transcendent, the movement from potency to actuality happens simultaneously for all instantiations at every scale, not simply the most fundamental.