2
   

Aquinas scholar, i have a question regarding the first way.

 
 
Reply Tue 1 Oct, 2013 06:49 am
I am no expert of St. Thomas Aquinas, nor did extensive research with his volumous Summa Contra Gentile and Summa Theologica, however i did some with commentaries, and i really did not comprehend much.

My question is, how is it possible for God the Unmoved mover, to be the mover when he is NOT the first in the series of "MOVED" movers? I really need someone who is a scholar of Aquinas, please.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Question • Score: 2 • Views: 1,643 • Replies: 5
No top replies

 
dalehileman
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 1 Oct, 2013 10:10 am
@NikAlonto21,
Nike why don't you provide a link to the pertinent issues

…since some of us are too lazy to undergo a Google scrolling
InfraBlue
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 1 Oct, 2013 03:34 pm
@NikAlonto21,
He begging the question by asserting that an infinite regress of movers is impossible, and continues from there to make another assertion: that everything proceeds from an unmoved mover.
0 Replies
 
NikAlonto21
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Oct, 2013 08:12 pm
@dalehileman,
aw apologies. But I'm particularly looking for an Aquinas Scholar, or those who have extensively studied Aquinas. But thanks anyway.
dalehileman
 
  0  
Reply Wed 2 Oct, 2013 11:55 am
@NikAlonto21,
Thanks Nik for your forbearance
0 Replies
 
tacitus7
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Nov, 2013 04:43 pm
@NikAlonto21,
St. Thomas's argument is based upon the idea that there can not be an infinite regress of insufficient causes. There has to be a cause that is sufficient unto itself. This cause we call the "unmoved mover" because it is unique. It's existence and power is not dependent upon another. Now, if such a sufficient cause, such a unmoved mover, did not exist, there would be nothing. But there is something, in fact, an entire universe. Therefore there must be an unmoved mover.

This argument of course for many of us proves nothing about the nature of God. That he is a personal God that is personally interested in us, all this is based upon revelation and not reason. It is important to understand what traditionally we believed this argument proves and what it doesn't prove. Hope this helps.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Aquinas scholar, i have a question regarding the first way.
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/23/2021 at 02:22:19