An Analysis of the First Way

The Five Ways of St. Thomas are five arguments that demonstrate the existence of God. It is a very systematic approach to the question of the existence of God in reality. For centuries, it has been praised and criticized by different

philosophers after Aquinas. The five proofs are a posteriori meaning they start from observable phenomena in the world and proceeds through a series of arguments until it reaches a conclusion that God exists in reality. However, upon reading these proofs especially the three labeled as cosmological proofs, one question occurred to me: is it really absurd to think of an infinite series of causal events? To answer this tricky question, we have to try and analyze the First Way of St. Thomas cosmological arguments, that is, the proof from motion. Our senses prove that some things are in motion. Things move when potential motion becomes actual motion. Only an actual motion can convert a potential motion into an actual motion. Nothing can be at once in both actuality and potentiality in the same respect therefore nothing can move itself. Therefore each thing in motion is moved by

something else. This sequence of motion cannot extend ad infinitum. Therefore there must be a first mover which does not need to be moved but is able to move things, and this, says Aquinas, everyone understands to be God. In this proof, it is stated that A cannot move unless it is moved by B which in turn needs to be moved by C and so on. Why cant we accept that this series can extend infinitely? To understand this problem, lets look at this example: no one may do anything without asking for permission. If we follow this, nobody will be able

to do anything since asking for permission requires doing something. There must be someone who can do anything, including the granting of permission, for there to be a series of motion. If A is only potentially in motion and the same is true for B, C, D, etc., no motion can proceed. But since we see that A is already in motion, there must be something which started the motion which does not need to pass from potentiality to actuality. But what if the series has been really going on infinitely without a First Mover? What if its all really just a series of moving and being moved down to infinity? We already answered that no motion can proceed if the series has a beginning unless something sets everything in motion. But we were not present during the beginning of this series therefore there is no direct evidence that it is not infinite. It also seems that there is no logical contradiction if we accept this infinite series as true, or is there? To solve this problem we need to understand the terms used. The word infinite is synonymous with the words unbounded, limitless, and immeasurable. A series is a succession of things or events. An infinite series would mean a limitless or immeasurable succession of things or events. The problem starts once you

realize the incompatibility of these two terms. Something infinite cannot be divided into parts or units. It is because a part of a thing that is truly infinite must be equal to the whole or else it will be finite. But a series is something that is composed of parts. It is a succession of individual units. Therefore an infinite chain of events would be logically absurd. To put it another way, infinity cannot be the sum of finite things.

How absurd can an infinite series of finitude be in real life? Imagine yourself watching a TV series with an infinite number of episodes. Actually you cant

because the idea really is absurd. You will not be able to understand the story since the TV series has no beginning and no end. You wouldnt even be able to

distinguish if the story is already in the middle because everything must be there at once. Not to mention that you have a limited time to watch. But given that you have infinite time for it, you must be able to pick-up the whole story at one glance but that would be unimaginable. Through this disturbingly messed up illustration, it must be clear that the terms infinite and series are utterly irreconcilable. The same would be true if we will apply it to an infinite series of moving and being moved. It would be as jumbled as the case above. The series must have happened all at once or else it will not be a real infinity. The only possible solution to this absurdity would be to admit that St. Thomas was right in claiming that no series of causality could be traced back ad infinitum. This will lead us back to the

resolution that there is a beginning in this series and there exists a Prime Mover who set everything in motion! To God be the Glory.

Submitted by: _____________________ Ron Rald E. Miranda History of Medieval Philosophy March 3, 2013