My articles on the Prime Mover Argument for the existence of God (here, here, and here), also known as Aquinas’s First Way, are a bit lengthy and technical. This is needed for a full understanding/appreciation of the argument. However, it can take some time to really get through them. As such, I thought it might be useful to post a condensed, outlined version of the argument, in the form of a syllogism:
- Our senses observe that motion really exists
- Motion is a potency reduced to act
- Potency can only be reduced to act by another which is itself already in act
- Essentially ordered series of such motion must either terminate in a prime mover (which is Pure Act), or else have a circular or an infinite regress
- Essentially ordered causal series of such motion cannot in principle have a circular or an infinite regression
- Therefore, there must exist a prime mover, which is a being of Pure Act
Now, what can we know about this being of Pure Act?
- A being of Pure Act is, by definition, purely actual, with absolutely no potencies
- Anything that changes has potencies
- Therefore, the being of Pure Act cannot change (is immutable)
- In order to distinguish objects from other objects, they must have potencies
- Two or more beings of Pure Act would have no potencies, and thus would be indistinguishable, and thus identical
- Thus we can say that there is only one being of Pure Act (is one)
- All material objects have potencies
- Therefore, the being of Pure Act cannot be material (is immaterial)
- To come into or go out of existence is to change
- Therefore, the being of Pure Act can never have come into, and can never go out of, existence (is eternal)
- Every being which exists within time has potencies
- Therefore, the being of Pure Act cannot exist within time (is timeless)
So far we have established one being of Pure Act which is immutable, immaterial, and timeless. This already takes us to a conception of God. What more can be said?
- The being of Pure Act ultimately actualizes all potencies, so it is the ultimate cause of everything
- Thus it can be said to be “all powerful” (is omnipotent)
- The being of Pure Act is immaterial (see pt. 7-8 above)
- It is possible that all immaterial beings can be said to be personal beings (for a defense/explanation of this, see part 3 of my Prime Mover series)
- Furthermore, all causes must contain their effects either eminently or formally
- The being of Pure Act is the ultimate cause of all human attributes
- Therefore, the being of Pure Act must contain human attributes either eminently or formally
- Many human attributes are material in nature
- The being of Pure Act is immaterial
- Therefore, the being of Pure Act can only be said to contain these physical/material attributes eminently
- Some human attributes, such as personhood and moral nature, are immaterial
- Thus the being of Pure Act could be said to contain these attributes formally
- Therefore, we can say that the being of Pure Act contains personhood and a moral nature (albeit analogically)
Thus we have arrived at a being which is one, Pure Act, immutable, immaterial, timeless, eternal, omnipotent, and personal; and this being we call God.
To see the argument fully fleshed out, with each of the premises defended and key objections responded to, see the articles linked to above.
Thank you for the outline. It really helps me to see the outline structure when I’m thinking about the argument.
LikeLiked by 1 person
[…] my Prime Mover series (an outlined version of which with links to the full articles can be found here) will be familiar with this term. The Prime Mover Argument deals with motion, which is just one […]
LikeLike
[…] the Prime Mover argument demonstrates, essentially ordered series of potency reduced to act must ultimately lead to a Being […]
LikeLike
[…] the existence of God is necessary. I’ve looked at two of these arguments in some depth (see here and here for outlines of those arguments). If these arguments or others like them are successful […]
LikeLike
[…] does not believe this to be the case. If there is an “immovable substance” (e.g., the Prime Mover who is God), then there is something more fundamental than the natural world, and, as such, there […]
LikeLike
[…] won’t find it. That ultimate explanation is God (as I’ve argued elsewhere, such as here and here), what the scholastic philosophers called “Subsistent Being Itself,” the First […]
LikeLike
[…] we start from what is obvious and work our way down. For those familiar with the Argument from Motion, also known as Aquinas’s First Way, this method should be recognizable. In that argument, one starts from the observation that motion […]
LikeLike
[…] Recently, a question was posed to me about several possible problems with the Prime Mover argument for the existence of God. […]
LikeLike
[…] that I looked at Aquinas’s First Way, or the Prime Mover argument (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Outlined Version). This new series will be examining Aquinas’s Third Way, or the Argument from Contingency for […]
LikeLike
[…] not move, why think that its individual parts cannot move within it? For those familiar with the Prime Mover argument, this might seem like a contradiction for Aristotle, however. In that argument, it is stated that […]
LikeLike
[…] you have not already, please refer to them. Here is the article specifically on essence/existence. Here is the outline of the First Way, and here is the outline of the Second […]
LikeLike
[…] precise in terminology. By necessary I just meant that certain deductive arguments (such as the Prime Mover, First Cause, or Contingency arguments) guarantee a posteriori the existence of God as a necessary […]
LikeLike
[…] The instantiation of forms in matter is the actualization of potency and, as we have seen from the Prime Mover and First Cause arguments, all actualization of potency ultimately requires the existence of a […]
LikeLike
[…] interesting objection to the Prime Mover argument is that its conclusion is self contradictory. The underlying question in this objection is how […]
LikeLike
[…] ordered causal series. Their individual distinctiveness comes from their starting points: the First Way starts from motion, the Second starts from efficient causation in general, and the Third from […]
LikeLike
[…] matter material substances which make up our cosmos, then still arguably yes. Arguments such as the First, Second, and Third Ways, if successful, would establish that. But even beyond these arguments, just […]
LikeLike
[…] be direct, or, if in a series, it will be an essentially ordered causal series (see posts on First or Second Ways for more on this). Hence, it must terminate at a first cause of the series that […]
LikeLike
[…] Five Ways, or arguments for the existence of God. Outlines of the previous four Ways can be found here, here, here, and here, respectively. The first three, as I’ve explained multiple times […]
LikeLike
[…] the Kalam presents it somewhat more explicitly than other cosmological arguments. Aquinas’s First Way, for instance, asks why we live in a universe that is full of motion and change; Leibniz’s […]
LikeLike