Objections to St Thomas Aquians First Way (The Unmoved Mover)

[@Tdisputations]

Which premise depends on the idea that the plants are perfect spheres? This is a complete strawman of the argument.

[@absurdist5938]

Nop.. Aristotles observations and physics were highly based on misunderstood physics.. But still he was great though

[@danielclee1]

"A motion-sensing light changes itself from off to on." No, it doesn't. It is programmed to detect the change and this then makes the distinction by flipping on or off... by design. Its designer being a higher intelligence - ie., the human programmer. I gave up at this point.

[@MrRezitinas]

All of the objections are pretty bad. Like the rod being hot and cold at different ends is not 2 different actualities. It's 1 actuality. The singular state of having both a hot and cold end.

[@LogosTheos]

"Aquinas is relying on Aristotle's physics to make that argument" Bruh............bruh

[@duqueadriano0081]

b

[@jmike2039]

He is

[@duqueadriano0081]

@@jmike2039 nope

[@NM-jn6cp]

"Self driving cars change themselves" "motion sensors" none of these things change themselves without a conscious human source.

[@carsonianthegreat4672]

Objection 7 describes two accidentally ordered series (not essentially ordered) in your examples of the bowl and water and the binary star. Aristotle acknowledges accidentally ordered series as legitimate. This flaw in the 7th objection causes it to fail.

[@AntiCitizenX]

Distinction without a difference...

[@Δάμων_Δ]

Ah, I found myself internally screaming when you equated the movement from potentiality to actuality to linear causation. This is perhaps the original confusion upon which all objections to this argument since Hume through J.S. Mill and Russell have been based. It is simply a wrong view of the argument and therefore produces inconsequent objections and leads to examples of “unmoved movers” in terms of linear causation instead of a “sustaining cause” or a “hierarchical” causal series with a necessary, unique terminus. Please take Edward Feser’s “5 Proofs of the Existence of God” into account for your Objections to the Objections video if you do one-you will find it far more challenging and will finally do justice to this interesting and historically misunderstood argument.

[@Δάμων_Δ]

雨Jacob雨 that was a wonderful explanation and I appreciate your clarifications of causal reductionism. I will do more research here and attempt a reply if I feel that one is necessary. Thanks!

[@erichvazquez3758]

All of the Five Ways do not rely on Aristotle's physics but metaphysics which is different from any development natural philosophy. Metaphysics is the worldview that one would hold on. This third objection does not depend on any theory of time because in a B-series a object still can change. With Hume's objection there needs the other understanding of different causation whether it is linear or hiearachal causation. Objection five is not a good objection due to the misunderstanding of what Aquina's means by property.

[@CarneadesOfCyrene]

They rely on Aristotle's Physics, he justifies his claim that there must be an unmoved mover with reference to the claim that the crystal spheres which hold the planets mus be moved by something. Movement of the planets is physics, not metaphysics (kzbin.info/www/bejne/eKm5Ya19i6mLgdE). If you have read McTaggart, you are aware that the whole point of a B Series is that it cannot change (kzbin.info/www/bejne/bXKUeWmHirx8qtk). Why do you think that I mistake what Aquinas means by a property? If a change in temperature does not constitute a change, what does?

[@studioofgreatness9598]

@@CarneadesOfCyrene Okay but in efficient essential causes this point is still true which is what the argument of Thomas is about. And yes the notion of crystal dosen't hold today in physicist but the idea of potential to actuality still holds in metaphysics. (which is what Thomas Aquinas was mainly taking from Aristotle)

[@studioofgreatness9598]

@@CarneadesOfCyrene Edward feser or dr Robert Koontz would explain it better

[@williamoquinn828]

Cite where he mentions planets, its an argument from the nature of act and potency applied to essentially ordered causes. In such a cause there cannot be an infinity by necessity because they would only be able to cause if they received causation. It's exactly the same as if someone tried to ground knowledge with an infinity of prior premises. @@CarneadesOfCyrene

[@thegreatcornholio7255]

After spending the last few months reading Thomist philosophers (like Ed Feser and others), it is clear that you do not understand Aquinas's first way. The curious thing about so many atheists, why do the they "refute" things they don't really understand? That's very telling to me.

[@studioofgreatness9598]

We dont reject modern pyshcis because this had nothing to do with psychics but with metapyshcis

[@leonarduskarolusiuliustant7498]

Right, he mostly didn't know what he was talking about.

[@Tartaggz]

Motion doesn’t have to do with physics? Why not?

[@arcadia14]

@@Tartaggz when Aquinas talks about motion he means "change", not simply movement.

[@Tartaggz]

@@arcadia14 the difference being what exactly? Isn’t movement the change in spatiotemporal location?

[@VitorEmanuelOliver]

@@arcadia14 so? Change in the physical world, not in a metaphysical realm

[@Δάμων_Δ]

I think you are wrong in claiming that one needs to subscribe to Aristotelian physics in order find the actuality/potentiality distinction convincing. This has been proven to be false by modern defenders of Aquinas’ arguments, most notably Edward Feser in his books “Scholastic Metaphysics”, “The Last Superstition: A Refutation of the New Atheism”, “Aquinas”, and, more recently “5 Proofs of the Existence of God”. I think Feser’s explications are very hard to rebut and, especially in “5 Proofs”, he shows how all objections to this distinction and to his arguments fail. I would love for you to engage with this work and I think you would find it very challenging.

[@CarneadesOfCyrene]

The entire argument is based on Aristotelian physics. I provide you with the dilemma of either you need to accept modern physics or you can have this argument, since modern physics contradicts the necessary Aristotelian claims for the argument to get off the ground. In what I have read of Feser, he emphatically rejects modern physics and science in favor of Aristotelian physics. Here's Feser: "It took a few years, but eventually I came around to concluding that the Aristotelian view of the world-including its theistic component-was essentially correct." While this is internally consistent, it means that you are committed to rejecting science, which is hard for many to swallow, and opens the argument to a range of objections from anyone that accepts modern physics. So I'm very skeptical of the claim that Aristotelian physics can be separated from Aquinas's arguments, at least without significantly changing what the argument is saying. All of that said, as a skeptic, I am skeptical of scientific realism, and so I am sympathetic to Feser's negative arguments against some modern science, I just don't think that Aristotle has any better arguments to justify his claims. Perhaps some day I will take a look at making a series objecting to Feser's work, but since his work is so tied to the outdated and unjustified Aristotelian worldview, I don't find it as interesting, since in my mind the strongest objections are to Aristotle, not to the arguments built on top of his work.

[@LogosTheos]

@@CarneadesOfCyrene It isn't based on Aristotlelian physics and Feser never said he rejected modern science in favor of Aristotlelian physics. There he is talking about Aristotlelian metaphysics. I was looking for some solid critiques of Aquinas because I am agnostic about the validity of his metaphysics, but you misrepresentated the arguments. Unfortunately I have to look elsewhere.

[@TheSoftaco]

Bro this was trash aquinas deserves a better class of critique. The amount reddit materialist mindset is just poison to any discussion

[@goranmilic442]

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.

[@sethapex9670]

even gravity is not a pure actuality. the gravitational force is caused by the curvature of space, which is itself caused by the distribution of matter, and neither has it always existed. before very shortly after the big bang, some 10^-32 seconds after it if I remember correctly, it was too hot for any of the forces of nature to take hold, and instead they were all combined into a single unified force. it is these conditions that scientists are trying to recreate with ever more powerful particle accelerators in order to study the properties of this single unified force.

[@absurdist5938]

So is there a pure actuality? Nope.. There must be a subjective definition of actuality

[@sethapex9670]

@@absurdist5938 a pure actuality is necessary for anything to exist at all, something which its essence is identical to existence itself. Since nothing in ordinary experience is a pure actuality, and this pure actuality is necessary for anything in our ordinary experience to exist, the pure actuality must be beyond ordinary experience. Since our subjective definitions are part of our ordinary experience, a subset, a pure actuality must be beyond even our subjective definitions.

[@absurdist5938]

@@sethapex9670 give me an example what u meant by pure actuality...

[@sethapex9670]

@@absurdist5938 I already said pure actuality is not part of ordinary experience. I cannot give an example, not even a sufficient definition. I can only explain it in terms of the properties we can know it must possess. It is the source of all being, as such nothing else can exist separate from it, and therefore it is singular, and there can therefore only be one example. It caused and causes the existence of everything that exists, as such our potential existence is derived from it's actual existence. Therefore any property in potential would have been held in actuality in this entity of pure actuality. As Evil is really just a deficit of Good, it is itself not actually a property but a lack of one, and therefore cannot be predicated of this pure actuality. Therefore we can say that one property of this entity of pure actuality is that it must be Good, and that all evils in the world procede from a lack of this pure actuality, as such all evils have a potential for good by being brought into alignment with this pure actuality. The fact that this entity of pure actuality is singular does not preclude the Christian notion of the Trinity, as we cannot say that just because this entity is one being that it cannot also be 3 persons. The isomorphism between a being and a person commonly observed in experience is not logically necessary and as such cannot necessarily be predicated of a being that is beyond experience.

[@absurdist5938]

@@sethapex9670 the whole statement is based on " there is some differences as pure actuality..i didn't understand a thing.. So may be I look more what Aristotle himself says about it..

[@danielclee1]

I might be missing something here but because, now, a thing is not caused by a previous thing (potentiality brought into actuality, cause and effect, which is intuitive to me), but instead there is a "conjunction of events" (events are joined but the meaning is pulled, which is not intuitive to me even if I may not necessarily see the linkage because not always is a link apparent), Aquinas' first way now falls flat? I don't get it. Is the Big Bang the cause of history, or are these two merely "joined" events?

[@JonSebastianF]

I really, really, really need to _first_ spend more time explaining Aquinas' argument. Instead, you jump straight to the objections, but as a viewer, we have yet little idea about what they object to. Hence, either tell the viewer to read up on Aquinas, or take the viewer carefully through it first!

[@notme222]

He did, but it was a month ago so I can't blame anyone for not realizing that. kzbin.info/www/bejne/Y4qppXV5btF9o9E

[@Tartaggz]

Jon Sebastian this isn’t funny. I know you’re trying to just joke around but I didn’t find it funny.

[@JimmyWood10]

uuugh I specifically looked up objections with Aquinas first way for my philosophy class... lol

[@fosgnosis6336]

To be purely actual is to be Being Itself.

[@Aristos_Arete]

The strongest argument I found in this video was Hume's causation argument. The rest kinda force the bar, there was even the one with the bowl of cold water which flat out ignored an important aspect of Thomistic metaphysics, namely that something which is a lack (as cold lacking heat) cannot act, because it does not have being. only something that has being is actual and can act. something that is cold receives being from something hot.

[@ozarks2345]

So a cold coffee is not being???😂😂

[@arvinmalabanan8321]

Denying change is incoherent in such a way that in the process of denying, change is already happening. One need not to experience all triangles in a flat surface in order to know that every triangle in a flat surface has interior angles equal to 180 degrees. Computers doesn't change by itself without the electricity. Every change presupposes existing things. Existing things are potentials actualized just as water in part is actualized by its molecules, which in turn is actualized by its atoms, which in turn are actualized by sub atomic particles. It must stop to an Unmoved Mover. The Unmoved Mover is Purely Actual and therefore immutable, therefore immaterial, therefore incorporeal, all powerful etc. That is for God to exist. Please see the works of Dr. Edward Feser, especially the Five Proofs for the Existence of God.

[@phasorthunder1157]

Not with the B theory of time. Which is exactly what divine timelessness and an unchanging God require.

[@arvinmalabanan8321]

@@phasorthunder1157 Abstracting time away in a an analysis doesn't make time and change not real. When we are talking about quantifiable aspect of reality, we abstract away all non-quantifiable aspect. It doesn't follow that those non-quantifiable aspect aren't real. We didn't produce those non-quantifiable aspect such as quality, relation, action, passion, etc. So, in B theory of time not taking into account time doesn't necessarily mean that there's no time and change.

[@Tartaggz]

Arvin Malabanan The B theory of time doesn’t assert that there’s no time but it does assert that there’s no change. Think of a three-dimensional object; as you go along either the X, Y, or Z axis, it will change, but the object itself doesn’t change. The same goes with time; it seems different as we move along the fourth “axis“, but time itself doesn’t actually change, that’s just how we perceive it from the inside looking out

[@aryamann3731]

Please make the rest of the videos in this series... I can't wait... When do you plan to do it??

[@duqueadriano0081]

idk why he stopped with this series probably because he realized he needs to know better next time

[@jmike2039]

@@duqueadriano0081 what an absolute disingenous inference; he covers nearly everything and you want to complain and undermine his understanding because he hasn't finished a series? Get over yourself

[@spiritofmodernity9679]

@@jmike2039 He's completely wrong in this video though

[@absurdist5938]

@@spiritofmodernity9679 for u

[@spiritofmodernity9679]

@@absurdist5938 Not for me, it's just plain wrong

[@dettoist]

Where can I find the other videos of this and other series? Is there another channel?

[@CarneadesOfCyrene]

The series is still in progress. I wanted to get through a mini series on Aristotle's Four Causes before moving on to the Second Way since it relies on the idea of efficient cause. So stay tuned!

[@studioofgreatness9598]

Aristotle didn't mean events of things, but strictly things

[@larrywilliams5490]

Gravity and Electromagnetism just came out of nowhere......?🤔No I'm still with the First Cause and Unmoved Mover.And the metal rod, there are lot of variables.How long is the rod, how thick?How much heat is being applied?If the rod is too long or thick and not enough heat the rod will only reach a certain point where the heat will end.Anyway its fun to play with.

[@ozarks2345]

Take for example a simple rod , even at any point if change happens and it is not actuallised by some other actual thing then it proves that change does not always need another actuallizer . Also people confuse a lot between arguemnt from change and cause qnd effect arguement

[@CatholicDwong]

Read Feser lol

[@hillismicheal2878]

there are motion sensors in nature or they act in that way.its the whole thing if I'm jumping from one rock to the other in a straight line or am i jumping in an arc.for one to say somthing is outdated is a in proper argument in anytime or situation.they are trying to unseat that thing in place .

[@kenseki6893]

Where are the rest?

[@CarneadesOfCyrene]

I will get back to it one day. I have a lot of series which are very slowly being finished.

[@kenseki6893]

Carneades.org Thank you for the clarification, I’ve just been looking for a rundown because of how stressful explaining my reasoning for God, into words. I’m not good at verbalization of my thoughts, so I’ve been rewatching the first proof over and over till I am capable of relaying it to someone else

[@joekeegan937]

The author of this video does not really grasp the difference between physics and metaphysics. Thomas' five ways are not dependent on Aristotelian physics, but on his metaphysics. Aristotle's metaphysics are as completely separable and distinct from his physics as they are from his ethics. Modern science has not disproven Aristotelian metaphysics or causality.

[@CarneadesOfCyrene]

The first way is dependent on Aristotle's physics. Kinetic and potential energy are studied in physics classes. Heat, fire, movement, are all studied in physics. Many Christians attempt to hide Aquinas's (and Aristotle's) misunderstanding of modern physics by pretending that concepts that are clearly about physics are about metaphysics. There is certainly some metaphysics in there as well, but I have quite a few more objections listed in the video. If you think I'm wrong, you need to respond to all 9 of the objections.

[@alexandruvasile4244]

@@CarneadesOfCyrene Aristotle did scientific mistakes but it has nothing to do with this argument. Yes, we know now that planets does not move in the sense Aristotle believe they do, but they still move, they still go from potential to actual. Potential and actual are simply words to describe change, in the sense that a possible state of affairs a thing could be become real. This has nothing to do with the scientific beliefs of Aristotle. Change occurs today as well as in Aristotle time. Things go from potential to actual as well. They still require an actualizer and so on. The rest of objection are wrong as well: 1. A pure actual being must be immaterial, unique, all powerful, al knowing etc, must have intellect. Thomistic philosophers like Edward Feser present this in their books. For example, since that being it's pure actual it has no potential and therefore it has no potential to be actualized and no privation. Therefore it is perect. It actualizes everything else without any antecedent casual conditions, so it must have will, in other words must be a personal being. 3. Change is obvious. Water change its temperature because sth external. If there would be no external agents, water would not change. It is a relation between the moments of time, they are not separate. This metaphysical principle is also compatible with B-theory of time. 4. Hume objection is ridiculous. To deny causality is contrary to reason. It defies the principal of sufficent reason. Sth to happen out of nothing is beyond any reason and logic an onest thinker could have. 5. Sth cand be cold and hot at the same time. Somehow. But that s not the point. It s that the object has some state of affairs due to some actualizers, the principle still aplies. It could have other states of affairs, potentials states that could be actualized. But it could not have two state of affairs at the same time. I mean it could have different temperatures, but it does not have more collections of temperatures at the same time if you want. 6. Self moving objects? Seriously? Nth is self caused if you really want to understand the mechanisms you offer as examples. 7. A circle of causes does not work and the point I make apply to objection no 8 as well. The reason why Aristotle believes that a "per se" chain of actualized actualizers cannot regress indefinitely is the fact that in fact we deal with instrumental causes. Things that has no real causal power, thay just receive it. They are all potentialities. Nor a an infinite number of potential beings nor a circle of them would become actual without a pure actual being. And there is a lot to be said here but I think that comment is long enough to stop here.

[@swinchymaths1104]

Was looking forward to begin with but now I feel you are not truly addressing the issues, I'm just not getting you and your single agenda mindset. I would prefer a balanced view and not one that seems to revel in dismissing a theology that has been carefully considered by many.

[@98danielray]

I just dont understand how can an argument have certain axioms and then state a conclusion which doesnt follow them. as whats defined would lead to an external object in the argument and break the logical chain behind it wouldnt that be a paradox or am I perhaps wrong?

[@proudfootz]

It does seem to be a self-refuting argument.

[@hamicestormgladiator]

lol @ objection 3. if change does not exist the objector should not expect such an objection to create a change in anyone’s mental state with regards to their belief about this argument. the objection then becomes frivolous and self-defeating.

[@carsonianthegreat4672]

Motion sensing lights do not change themselves. They are changed by photons hitting their sensors. Your objections 4,5, and 6 especially are flawed because of this oversight.

[@NM-jn6cp]

"Self driving cars change themselves" "motion sensors" none of these things change themselves without a conscious human source. And his argument was that these things could be changed without a human source when in reality it took a human source to actualize them to begin with. His arguements are extremely flawed.

[@sethapex9670]

On a graph you can represent an infinite line with no beginning or ending, a line segment with a definite beginning and ending, and a ray which has a definite beginning but no ending. But there is no such thing as a line which never had a beginning but does have an ending. Only finite processes have sure endings. As we are finite beings we are capable of experiencing such a state as "now" or the present, as an end point to our experience of the past, though it itself becomes subsumed by the past as soon as we move on to a new now which we believe is presently in our future. But for an infinite being, represented as a line, there is no definite now, instead all of it's experience are subsumed into a single now, it has no past or future, only a continuous eternal now. All line segments are, as their term would suggest, finite segments of one of these infinite lines. Our beginnings and endings and every point in between are, in the context of that infinite line, nothing but a single point, but one part of that now. For these reasons, there cannot be an infinite regress of finite processes. Instead all finite processes must only be segements of a truly infinite process. And from the perspective of that infinity, everything is a part of itself.

[@justinhenry5772]

These objections fail against the argument itself.

[@CarneadesOfCyrene]

If you have an argument to support that claim, please offer it. If you have nothing but unfounded assertions, I would be surprised if you convinced anyone.

[@Tartaggz]

Your comment fails against his counter argument

[@demergent_deist]

Here you can also find a good critique of the proof from motion: spirit-salamander.blogspot Feser criticism in a nutshell (short version)

[@jbclayville]

The second argument is a genetic logic fallacy. Regardless of the worldview of Aristotle, the need for actualized energy which experiences no outside influence/restrictions, stands. How can an actualized object (inanimate) actualized itself? The rod is being effected by the laws of science in its environment, not simply it’s own properties.

[@DilaFon-r5b]

You misunderstanding of aristotle's and Thomas aquinas Metaphysics is so sad, it almost disgust me.

[@guillatra]

I always wondered how Aquinas could think he has good reasons to identify this first cause as god. I'm not even sure if this move is something apologists need to do. As long as the first cause might be god, a first-cause-argument is neutral to theism.

[@guillatra]

Even if that's true, it needs a better argument, not just "this is what we call god".

[@henryspragge]

please don’t think you’re giving this enough thought, you are years behind that. Read, read, and read. If helpful, there’s a free resource online called “Nature, Knowledge, and God” by Br. Benignus, which will keep you intellectually stimulated for quite some time. Edward Feser’s book, “Aquinas” is also an excellent read. Just trying to help. Best of luck my friend.

[@Mx25a]

Very good and complete video! What I cant understand is why sometimes for Aquinas, god is the first efficient or creative cause, then god is the unmoved mover, and we know that the unmoved mover moves the others because it is their final cause, not their efficient/creative cause. So, if god is the first mover, he cant be "unmoved" at all.

[@studioofgreatness9598]

Do you mean first in the sense of time or in essential efficient causes.

[@Gumikrukon]

Thanks! :)

[@mileslegend7140]

no they couldn't be applied to another laws of physics, because God makes choices, whereas laws don't.

[@absurdist5938]

How is that an objection

[@MBarberfan4life]

People like Feser want to disentangle Aristotelian-Thomistic metaphysics from Aristotelian-Thomistic physics. The problem is that such a move appears to be entirely ad hoc (in light of modern physics). Not to mention, I'm not sure how Aquinas' arguments are any better than contemporary arguments for God since most people (including theists) already don't accept the metaphysical assumptions behind Aquinas' arguments.

[@trafalgarla]

If I remember correctly there was also a Notre Dame review that pointed out how Feser's arguments for his metaphysics don't deny the conclusion of naturalism which just makes his whole project fall flat

[@mordec1016]

Philosophy of Religion Blog ad hoc? How is it "ad hoc"; he's not making arbitrary limitations, he simply argues that the metaphysical claims are quite independent of the physical ones (quite plausible, actually).

[@mohamedabostate2042]

+Panurge Nah. This is also his first objection. Objection 1 fails because A being with no potencies and is purely actual (the conclusion of the argument from change) but is purely actual would be immaterial since matter has the potential to change location, the potential to break apart and come together, the potential to be structured, and so on. A Being of Pure Act (BPA) with no potentials would also be timeless since if it had the potential to grow older than it is now, then it just wouldn’t be purely actual. It cannot be something with spatial location, since that would entail a potential to change location. So it must be Spaceless. Since Actus Purus is pure actuality, he must not have come into being or went out of being since these are potentialities which would need to be actualize so it must be Eternal and Beginnigless. If it did not know anything, it would have the potential to know that fact. Since the unmoved mover has no potencies, it already knows everything so it is Omniscient. Since it is the cause of all actualized potentials, and therefore the cause of everything that happens or could happen, it must be All-Powerful. An immaterial, spaceless, timeless, eternal, omniscient, all-powerful being who causes all the change we see is what theists mean when they say the God.

[@mohamedabostate2042]

+ Philosophy of Religion Blog >The problem is that such a move appears to be entirely ad hoc (in light of modern physics). >I'm not sure how Aquinas' arguments are any better than contemporary arguments for God since most people (including theists) already don't accept the metaphysical assumptions behind Aquinas' arguments. Objection 2 fails because the argument is not predicated on outdated physics like geocentrism. It uses only two concepts :Act and potency as well as Accidentally and essentially-ordered series. Both are empirically confirmed. We experience things which are one way currently but have the potential to be another way like water being liquid but later becoming ice. Or an acorn being actually a seed but potentially an oak tree. Accidentally-ordered series are series where each member causes the next one like a parent giving birth to a child who grows up and gives birth to another child and so on. Contrast that with an essential series where all members derive their causal abilities from one member so that if the prime mover stops, no effect would be available. In Accidental series, there is no prime mover but if the grandparent after giving birth to the parent was to die or go out of existence, the parent can still produce the effect since he is not ***continually*** deriving his abilities from his father the same way gears derive them from a motor. Two concepts. Both empirically confirmed. No outdated physics.

[@trafalgarla]

@Mohamed I don't know why you are directing this at me, and nobody mentioned matter as being this unmoved mover. Carneades mentioned forces like gravity and these have no extension. And you make so many leaps here. You have not given any reason why something that is pure act should have properties like omniscience. It is consistent for something to not have intentional and mental states involved with knowing things and yet have no potential for anything else. This whole scholastic metaphysics business just dances around fundamental assumptions that people skeptical of scholasticism are not willing to agree with. And your comment about physics is completely misguided. I'm a physicist and nobody uses "potentiality" and "actuality" and modern philosophers don't use it either because of the failures shown in the examples that Carneades outlined. In physics, you can describe the behavior of a rod with a hot and cold side using partial differential equations like the heat equation and give more fundamental classical physics explanations through thermodynamics and statistical mechanics. Potentiality and actuality don't give a meaningful theory behind this phenomena.

[@matthewfredrickmfkrz1934]

I was more adding to the concept by peering into the apparent ecosystem which a god would inhabit hypothetically... With my money comparison... If you knew anything about modern science they're looking into fables and saying... Oh... Ex. Dwave code which is been open sourced to figure out how to work with somehow resembles the Hebrew alphabet... The tree of life in the intersecting circles there's more circles and if you put it on a graph and found a circle intersect =1 the others create a spectrum between x/y to 1 this apparently works in 3d , 4d and so on and supports the multiverse theory... we were imbued with the power of God from the tree of knowledge and all can bare the armor of thot or thought if we choose... Science isn't a dogma it's a methodology where youd guess the outcome then test for results to see if you were right... You can see the children exercise this doing skate Trix and filming themselves... Thanks Satan totally did us a solid there

[@studioofgreatness9598]

Also the idea of gravity and forces have different interpretation in metaphysics. You can't use a realist interpretation or your saying a finite thing can produce infinite. The second is instrumentalist, this idea is that let's say the moving object is just use as a tool for the object from potential to actuality but is outside of that, not being either potiental or actual. The second is that it simply is part of the poteinral actuality. Either way the unmoved mover is not gravity. Because in essential causes thier must be a thing that dosent have a beginning or a end its unmoved it must always be.Since we know gravity is finite this cannot be possible.

[@angelotzovanis296]

Finally!

[@AdamBarboza-cl6ss]

There is such embarrassing conflation between the quite clear distinctions but also links between metaphysics and physics. Either interlocutor, whether for or against the First Way, concedes that there is some involvement of physical principles. The affirmer (theist) would have to say that physics is distant to the argument, as the demonstration is metaphysical, and not physical. Yet metaphysics does not exist without physics, this is a foundational truth. Though the denier (atheist) who is supposed stress the use of physics ignores metaphysics and breaks the stool they try to stand on with this weight. An objection with physics as a first principle, or starting point falls because it not as relevant as one from metaphysics, which is why your responses on some apparently superseded Aristotelian ideas, without specifying how they are inconsistent beyond a simplistic description of their claims, all fail in the end of this discussion.

[@rulas1122]

These objections are pretty bad.

[@phasorthunder1157]

Thanks alot for gathering numerous objections to this very flawed argument. This is one of those arguments where it looks solid on the surface but crumbles once you look deeper into it,

[@rodrigorivers2469]

The only thing that is flawed is this video and its understanding on what the argument is.

[@Havre_Chithra]

Acquinas***

[@michaelpisciarino5348]

Aquians