How the Prime Mover Argument Works
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 22 ส.ค. 2024
- ⭐️ Donate $5 to help keep these videos FREE for everyone!
Pay it forward for the next viewer: go.thomisticin...
How could an eternal universe have a prime mover? What can Aristotle's Prime Mover argument and St. Thomas’s famous Five Ways tell us about motion and time? Big questions like these have been popping up in the comment boxes of our Aquinas 101 videos since the start of our very first season. In this video series with Fr. Ambrose Little, O.P., we will attempt to provide some answers.
Want to participate? You can submit your big questions to Aquinas 101 using #AskAFriar in the TH-cam comments and on social media. And don't forget to like and share with your friends, because it matters what you think!
The big question featured in this video was taken from the comments section of:
Has the Universe Always Existed? (Aquinas 101) → • Has the Universe Alway...
How the Prime Mover Argument Works #AskAFriar (Aquinas 101) - Fr. Ambrose Little, O.P.
For readings, podcasts, and more videos like this, go to www.Aquinas101.com. While you’re there, be sure to sign up for one of our free video courses on Aquinas. And don’t forget to like and share with your friends, because it matters what you think!
Subscribe to our channel here:
www.youtube.co...
--
Aquinas 101 is a project of the Thomistic Institute that seeks to promote Catholic truth through short, engaging video lessons. You can browse earlier videos at your own pace or enroll in one of our Aquinas 101 email courses on St. Thomas Aquinas and his masterwork, the Summa Theologiae. In these courses, you'll learn from expert scientists, philosophers, and theologians-including Dominican friars from the Province of St. Joseph.
Enroll in Aquinas 101 to receive the latest videos, readings, and podcasts in your email inbox each Tuesday morning.
Sign up here: aquinas101.tho...
Help us film Aquinas 101!
Donate here: go.thomisticin...
Want to represent the Thomistic Institute on your campus? Check out our online store!
Explore here: go.thomisticin...
Stay connected on social media:
/ thomisticinstitute
/ thomisticinstitute
/ thomisticinst
Visit us at: thomisticinsti...
#Aquinas101 #ThomisticInstitute #ThomasAquinas #Catholic #ScienceAndFaith #scienceandreligion
This video was made possible through the support of grant #61944 from the John Templeton Foundation. The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the John Templeton Foundation.
The sound of the ringing bell in your videos is literally my favourite sound. Also, this is truly great work, very educational and inspirational. Thank you!
This video is brilliant. Please keep doing these to address the difficult parts of Aquinas. A good one would be why the soul need to be created by God.
Actus essendi.
@@Ikaro_Vincente please explain
It would be extremely helpful if the Institute could do a video on human beings as essentially ordered causes.
It’s much easier to see the reasoning for a constant causation with inanimate objects, such as chains and watches. But much harder to see it in living beings.
Thank you, Father Little. Our Lady, Seat of Wisdom, pray for us.
You're welcome! May the Lord bless you!
@@ThomisticInstitute Thank you.
For those interested in the finite duration of the universe, note that entropy increases over time. If an infinite amount of time has already elapsed, the universe would already be in a state of maximal entropy. It is also worth hearing Peter Adamson's "History of Philosophy" podcast episode on John Philoponus.
What does that tell us about cause of universe?
@@goranmilic442 I believe it shows that the cause would have to exist outside of the realm that is subject to entropy.
@@johnrickert5572 I agree. Do we know anything else about it?
@@goranmilic442 Well, the best, brief suggestion I can make is to read the Summa Contra Gentiles of St. Thomas Aquinas. Or maybe have a look at Book 10 of Aristotle's Metaphysics, or books by Dennis McInerny. Philosophers and theologians have been pondering these questions for millennia. I hope this helps, and thank you for your consideration.
@@johnrickert5572 I appreciate your time, bit I was asking for your answer, since you're the one mentioning entropy in upper comment. Do we know anything about the cause of the universe, other than it's outside of entropy, basing on your comment that entropy increases over time? Because I assume your upper comment about maximal entropy has a point? I think both atheists and religious people would agree about the maximal entropy thing, so I don't understand the point of your comment.
Excellent video, Fr. Ambrose. Can you do one explaining the difference between the will and the intellect?
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation:
00:15 🤔 Understanding the cause of motion in a watch leads to important questions about the universe's cause.
01:10 🔄 Aristotle argued for the eternity of the world in terms of motion and time, believing there was no beginning or end to them.
02:04 🕰️ The Prime Mover Argument doesn't necessarily imply a beginning of time; a cause can coexist with its effects.
03:01 🔄 Essentially ordered causal series involve interconnected causes; motion in a pocket watch demonstrates this concept.
03:57 ⚙️ The Prime Mover Argument shows that a first cause is necessary for the universe, but not necessarily a first moment in time.
04:52 🔄 Accidentally ordered causal series allow effects to continue without constant cause activity; this concept relates to the universe's beginning in time.
05:32 🔄 The Prime Mover Argument establishes a first cause; additional arguments or revelation are needed to address the universe's beginning in time.
I really LOVE ALL THESE great postcats.TKANK YOU SO MUCH !!!!!
One of the best videos so far! The concepts finally clicked. Thank you, Fr. Little--excellent work!
We're so glad to hear it! Thanks for taking the time to watch and comment. May the Lord bless you!
The first cause was you thought to move it, it’s Initiation. It doesn’t poof into existence. Things need a reason, reason comes from reasoning, reasoning comes minds.
What moved your arm? The brain. What moved the brain? The mind.
Huh I thought first cause meant first moment implicitly... and seems I'm wrong need to rewatch the video, thank you Aquinas 101 team
This channel is a blessing.
Hi Father Little, could you make a video about Sydney Shoemaker's "Time Without Change" as it does cast serious doubt on Aristotle's notion that time without change would stay still/that there would be no time at all?
This is an excellent video series and it is much appreciated. One thing that I have come to wonder though, since God is not bound by time or space, why would he be bound by our reasoning and logic? Can we really say that God is bound by our ideas about causality?
th-cam.com/video/tqOi8JViVes/w-d-xo.html
🤯 after thinking about the explanation couldn't help but think of the Kalam cosmological argument which implies a first moment in time for the universe to exist, now with the explanation of accidentally ordered causal series 🤔 I keep thinking about the feasibility of an eternal universe which seems to be what Christian teologians are against beacuse an eternal universe implies a lack of a prime cause at first glance but then we have the essentially ordered casual series meaning that makes it feasible for both a first cause and an eternal universe ... that is puzzling
Please continue to teach us, the laity. We really appreciate it.
Aquinas' argument is based on problem he can't prove even exists, which Aquinas attempts to solve simply by defining his solution as something that solves the problem. Nothing can exist without cause, therefore let's invent an entity that can exist without cause, by calling it timeless and infinite, while at the same time we deny such properties to anything else. And then, the final touch, let's call this solution God, even though we didn't even start to prove that our solution is a sentient being, all-good, all-powerful, all-just, all-knowing, unique etc.
Very clear!
I liked it! and! I like milk shakes. But, I prefer vanilla malts.
Let us assume that the present was caused by the previous moment. Thus this argument follows: For every event there is a temporally prior event that is its cause.
If for every event there is a temporally prior event that is its cause, then causes are temporally prior to their effects.
Therefore causes are temporally prior to their effect.
If causes are temporally prior to their effects, then causes are not simultaneous to their effects.
If causes are not simultaneous to their effects, then God is not simultaneous to any of his effects.
Therefore God is not simultaneous to any of his effects
If god is not simultaneous to any of his effects, then God is not a prime mover.
If God is not a prime mover, then the first way is unsound.
Therefore the first way is unsound.
Aquinas was not referring to physical motion, but to metaphysical motion or movement from potentiality to actuality. The universe could not have always been in actuality.
May I submit that he referred to both? Motion in the strict sense is continuous (as opposed to discrete) change; it is defined as "the act of that which is in potency as such," and it has three species: locomotion (continuous change in location), growth/diminution (continuous change in quantity), and alteration (continuous change in quality). There are other changes, in which potency for an act is succeeded by that act. Some of those changes can occur in non-material substances. These changes can be called motion in a broader sense, and I think Thomas sometimes uses this sense, though I don't have a good citation handy at the moment.
The logic of the arguments for a first mover arguably do not depend on the materiality of motion strictly so called, nor do they depend on the continuousness of motion strictly so called. That logic works for immaterial changes, like the changes that occur in the human intellect and will. But Aquinas does think that the logic works for motion in the strict sense, even for locomotion, since that is a kind of change, a kind of act educed from potency.
Aristotle and Thomas are of the same opinion. Also Thomas of Aquinas teaches that the eternity of the world can not be proven from inside the world (but only from revelation). Thomas of Aquinas makes the distinction between two completely different kind of movements: The eternal movement and the actualisation from potentia to act. He teaches that in the eternal movement there is no actualization from potentia to act. His example of eternal movement is the circular movement of the stars. In the physics of the 20.th century that eternal movement was a linear movement once a corpus got its momentum. This was a big war between physicists and scholastics and the scholastic have won once again. The eternal movement is circular. Only in the second kind of movement there is a chain of causality. This is enough for the proof of God.
If the chain links are about one light year long, wouldn't that make it an accidentally ordered series? Because information can't travel faster than light. Is such a time lag relevant?
What's your take on gnosticism and Old vs new testament?
I assume Aquinas believed in an hierarchical structure to reality, i. e. God, angels, man, ... . Within this structure I also assume that these levels are "cut off" from each other, i. e. the entities within each level are ends or perfections in themselves. Does this structure pertain to the sciences? Physics has its domain as does chemistry, biology and mind. The boundaries may be gray but there are boundaries. In such a scheme there would be no "Grand Theory of Everything" ?
#AskAFrair What is meant by "prime mover" and "unmoved mover"? How do they differ?
Could you do a video about the difference between Eternal and Infinite? There is something peculiar about Eternity, as I understand it, in which we exist as a constant 'now' without change as opposed to the type of time infinity in which we experience now as we measure time according to change. I can see in your explanation how God could have established created things (infinite time) as eternally as Himself, but could He have really? Wouldn't this re-introduce the problem of infinite regress if God actually did that and become a 'can God create a rock so big He can't lift it' type of scenario. In mathematics a line and an ray are infinite; but for material creation wouldn't the 'ray' (arrow with a starting point then going on for infinity) of time be the only one God could create?
@@cherylmburton5577 Not sure how this relates to my question. Perhaps you added it to the wrong section.
How’s your relationship with Pachapapa Francisco? If it’s good then I’m not interested in what you have to say
Why should the “prime mover” be a conscious being?
This argument only promotes a beginning, but it doesn’t say much about the nature of that beginning
Most people would say a "personal God" is one with a will and intellect. Aquinas argues that God does have a will and intellect in a different part of the Summa Theologica using different arguments. That being said, Aquinas (and virtually every other thinker in the Catholic Tradition) would say that we cannot know God's nature itself, because God totally transcends our understanding.
Fernando: This is a valid point. Aquinas addresses it in the second part of this argument (First part: Something that can technically be described as "actus purus" [pure act] must necessarily exist for there to be change. Second part: This "actus purus" must have certain attributes that we traditionally attribute to God.). Regarding "being conscious" the logic goes something like this: We find that there are conscious beings in the world. We know that whatever is in the effect must in some form be present in the cause. Edward Feder explains this in detail in his short book Aquinas. I highly recommend it.
I am curious how you would answer your question, Fernando? What would the prime mover be if not a conscious being?
The Prime Mover made an intelligent universe. As demonstrated by nature itself, nothing acts in an intelligent fashion unless it is being acted upon by an intelligent being. The entire cosmos has an intelligence to it; if it didn't, we couldn't have any knowledge at all. We certainly wouldn't have any of the sciences. It seems that being and intelligence are imbued together. And since this Prime Mover is Being or Actuality Itself, it is the fullness of intelligence. Thus, it is omniscient. There are other attributes we can deduce of God, such as His omnipotence, omnipresence, or goodness.
@@GilMichelini It could be some natural phenomenon
I don't understand. Your hand was set in motion by your mind, and you mind was set in motion by your parents at the moment of your conception... So how can their be a prime mover?
Glory to the holy engine!
#askafriar
Love St. Ambrose (my favorite saint) I have a question for my son who lost the faith: He argues that the God of the Old Testament is not he same as the God of the New Testament or Jesus because he asked the Israelites to make war, to kill, to wipe out whole cities and even babies, how is this the God of life or forgiveness of the New Testament? Thus all is a lie and a fairytale. This is his reasoning and I have looked for answers but nothing changes the acts of violence of the Old Testament for him.
Being simultaneous to an effect involves having temporal location.
If being simultaneous to an effect involves having temporal location, then anything that is simultaneous to their effect is in time.
If anything that is simultaneous to their effect is in time, then a timeless God is not simultaneous to anything in time.
If a timeless God is not simultaneous to anything in time, then God is not simultaneous with an ever changing series of events.
If God is not simultaneous with an ever changing series of events, then God is not the source of change for the change that occurs in the universe.
If God is not the source of change for the change that occurs in the universe , then God is not the prime mover.
If God is not the prime mover, then
the conclusion of the first way is false.
Therefore the conclusion of the first way is false.
Therefore the first way is false.
The first way is sound.
If the first way is sound, then God is pure act.
If God is pure act, then God is intrinsically and extrinsically changeless.
If God is intrinsically and extrinsically changeless, then his actions are intrinsically and extrinsically changeless.
If his actions are intrinsically and extrinsically changeless, then God’s act of creating and sustaining the universe is intrinsically and extrinsically changeless.
If God’s act of creating and sustaining the universe is intrinsically and extrinsically changeless, then the universe is intrinsically and extrinsically changeless.
If the universe is intrinsically and extrinsically changeless, then the A theory of time is false.
If the A theory of time is false, then the first premise of the first way is false.
If the first premise of the first way is false, then the first way is false.
Therefore, the first way is false
All beings with free will have unactualized potential.
God is a being with free will.
Therefore God has unactualized potential.
If God has unactualized potential, then God is not pure act.
If God is not pure act, then the conclusion of the first way is false.
If the conclusion of the first way is false, then the first way is false.
Therefore the first way is false.
Could God create a cyclic universe (one that expands and contracts and expands)? The answer seems to be, yes. It could be part of God's nature/will to create this cyclic universe. Since God in infinite time past, then this cyclic universe is also infinite time past, so an infinite time past cyclic universe is possible. If an infinite time past cyclic universe is possible with God, then an infinite time past universe is possible without God.
@Malik Still works for if God is timeless. It would be the same as saying eternal. An eternal cyclic universe is possible without a God.
The necessity for a prime mover stems from the universe's perpetual motion. If everything moving requires a mover, the universe's constant motion implies a prime mover. This premise aligns with Newton's first law of motion, stating that an object at rest stays at rest, and an object in motion stays in motion unless acted upon by an external force. Thus, for anything to move, including the universe, it must have momentum, reinforcing the need for a prime mover to initiate its movement, regardless of its infinity or finitude.
@@Needlestolearn Can God create a time infinite universe in motion (maybe a cyclic universe)? I'd say yes. If a time infinite universe in motion is possible with a God, it is possible without a God. The universe (reality) could be the necessary thing...like God is. Why is God conscious vs not conscious? It seems you need something conscious to give God consciousness. This is the same sort of argument you are posing for the universe except you are using "motion" instead of consciousness.
@@gabrielteo3636 Proposing that God could create an infinitely moving universe through time, then concluding it could exist independently of God, is illogical. If something is infinite, it implies it wasn't created, as creation involves bringing something into existence and then having a beginning. The proposed infinite universe is akin to the prime mover itself, necessitating God's involvement. Additionally, our consciousness had a beginning and was bestowed upon us, while God has always existed and grants us our conscious experience. Our will is a byproduct of God's will; we are dependent on Him, while He is independent of all. This highlights our inherent dependence on God for our existence and conscious experience.
@@gabrielteo3636 Comparing the universe's dependence on God to a train's reliance on its track for movement is illustrative. Just as a train's motion is guided and facilitated by its track, the universe's continuous existence and motion are intricately linked to God's sustaining power and guidance. Just as the track provides the necessary framework for the train to travel, God's divine will and sustenance provide the foundation upon which the universe operates. This analogy underscores the concept that just as the train cannot move without its track, the universe cannot sustain its motion without God's continuous support and guidance.