Was There A First Cause? Reviewing The Five Ways

Devans99

The 5 Ways (to prove God’s existence) of St Thomas Aquinas can be found online at:

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm

Below I first examine the 5 ways of St Thomas Aquinas and try to subject them to modern scrutiny. Then I go on to give several other more modern arguments for a first cause.

Note I use the term ‘first cause’ as opposed to ‘God’ - it is a general criticism of Thomas’s arguments that he makes an unjustified jump between the two. So I’m restricting my criticism of Thomas to as if he was just arguing for a first cause, rather than arguing for God.

1. Argument From Motion

‘The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act… (edited for brevity)…It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.’

With our modern understanding of the Big Bang, the argument from first motion is still applicable - it seems scientifically likely that there was a first motion (the singularity).

Thomas here points out a general problem with infinite time/infinite regresses; they have no start, so they cannot logically exist, hence a first cause is logically required.

2. Argument From First Cause

‘The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause. In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or only one. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.’

This argument does of course require cause and effect as an axiom. More specifically, it requires cause and effect to apply to everything except the first cause. That makes perfect sense if the first cause is timeless. Then causality applies to everything except the first cause. Thomas mentions elsewhere in the Summa that God is timeless.

3. Argument From Necessary Being

‘The third way is taken from possibility and necessity, and runs thus. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible to be and not to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which is possible not to be at some time is not. Therefore, if everything is possible not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence. Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence — which is absurd. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has been already proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God.’

I find this argument, whilst basically valid, too similar to the first cause argument [2]

4. Argument from Degree

‘The fourth way is taken from the gradation to be found in things. Among beings there are some more and some less good, true, noble and the like. But "more" and "less" are predicated of different things, according as they resemble in their different ways something which is the maximum, as a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest; so that there is something which is truest, something best, something noblest and, consequently, something which is uttermost being; for those things that are greatest in truth are greatest in being, as it is written in Metaph. ii. Now the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus; as fire, which is the maximum heat, is the cause of all hot things. Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.’

Here Thomas picks up the idea of St Anselm’s - the greatest conceivable being (GCB).

‘Now the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus’ - this is stated baldly by Thomas without justification.

Just because the greatest of something exists, does not mean it is identical with God.

The greatest ‘good’ being might be different from the ‘most powerful’ being.

In general this argument does not hold up too well to scrutiny.

5. Argument from Final Cause

‘The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end. Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.’

We could interpret this argument in a modern sense as something must have created the natural laws (those laws are designed) and that something is the first cause. So this is maybe a variant of the modern argument from design.

Next I’ve given some more modern arguments for a first cause:

A. Argument From Nothing

Can’t get something from nothing so something must have existed ‘always’. IE if there was ever a state of nothingness, it would persist to today, so something has permanent existence. It’s not possible to exist permanently in time, so the ‘something’ must be a timeless first cause.

B. Argument from a Start of Time

There is an argument for a start of time (see https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5302/an-argument-for-eternalism/p1). With a start of time, a timeless first cause must exist that created time. This argument does not use cause and effect as an axiom.

C. Argument from the Big Bang

The Big Bang theory suggests that spacetime began 13 billion years ago. This would require a timeless first cause (beyond spacetime).

D. Argument from First Cause (Backwards)

The first cause determines the second, the second the third, and so on. In a universe with no first cause, nothing would be determined, so nothing could exist

E. Argument from Design

The universe is fine-tuned for life. Must be a fine tuner. But the fine tuner’s environment must also be fine-tuned for life. Implies another fine-tuner. This infinite regress must terminate with a timeless fine tuner who is synonymous with the first cause.

Summary

It seems to me that there are many arguments that a first cause must logically exist and no counter arguments against a first cause?

Whether a first cause is synonymous with God is probably best left to a separate post.

whollyrolling

The existence of horses and narwhals proves the existence of unicorns.

You could apply this principle to anything really. It's a simple formula, "because there's this, there must also be that".

This is what makes ancient philosophy so lasting, so impossible to defeat, so impressive and amazing. It's reverse psychology, if you say something so profoundly and incomprehensibly stupid that no one can argue against it, then you win while the world scratches its head.

Frank Apisa

Without the conclusion, "...to which everyone gives the name of God.’"...

...(which is an absurd conclusion to Aquinas' argument)...

...but without it, it makes no sense at all.

The only reason for the argument of a "first cause" IS to get to the god Aquinas wanted to get to.

Without that reason...no need for a first cause.

Without the god ending...just have EVERYTHING...ALL of existence...be the first cause.

Trying to exclude the "god conclusion" is just another backdoor attempt to conclude the existence of a god...without acknowledging that is what is being done.

Devans99

↪Frank Apisa

I agree, that's why I've restricted my claims to a first cause. Trying to get from that to 'God' requires a definition of God, which is probably another thread.

Devans99

This is what makes ancient philosophy so lasting, so impossible to defeat, so impressive and amazing. — whollyrolling

It tends to be that the most obvious arguments are the most convincing also and also are the first arguments to be documented chronologically. So we can't really ignore the classics.

whollyrolling

↪Devans99

Well then, I suppose we should seriously address "the classics" for their assertion that a drop of menstrual blood destroys a season's crops.

Why should we ignore them rather than clarify that much of their written work is demonstrably false and take it as a mistake and a lesson to address philosophy rationally and coherently?

Many of these nonsensical mentions of ancient philosophers are merely name-drops for those among us who insist on arguing based on what they perceive as "authority", or they want to pretend they're versed in primitive thought, which somehow qualifies their assertions. Ancient philosophy is outdated and out of context and involves more fantasy than rationality.

Devans99

↪whollyrolling

It is true they are full of errors, but my point still stands that the most obvious arguments would be documented first. In the case of prime mover/first cause arguments, they go right back to Aristotle. And the reasoning is still sound (hence people still talk about them).

So ancient sources are to be taken with a piece of salt but still respected.

Frank Apisa

Devans99
1.2k
↪Frank Apisa
I agree, that's why I've restricted my claims to a first cause. Trying to get from that to 'God' requires a definition of God, which is probably another thread. — Devans99

Either there is or is not a "first cause"...or there is a first cause...but EVERYTHING is the first cause.

Existence itself is infinite...with nothing causing it. And everything within existence...always was also.

That is the end of the discussion...

...UNLESS YOU ARE ATTEMPTING TO ESTABLISH THAT A GOD OF SOME KIND EXISTS.

(I suspect that really is what you are attempting to do, Devans. Search your motives. If you are not doing that...none of this stuff makes any sense.)

Devans99

Either there is or is not a "first cause"...or there is a first cause...but EVERYTHING is the first cause — Frank Apisa

I don't understand what you mean. I was caused by my parents meaning I was not the first cause for example...

Existence itself is infinite...with nothing causing it. And everything within existence...always was also. — Frank Apisa

If things go back forever, they have no start. If they have no start, there is no middle or end so they don't exist. So things cannot 'always exist'.

(I suspect that really is what you are attempting to do, Devans. Search your motives. If you are not doing that...none of this stuff makes any sense.) — Frank Apisa

I am trying to establish whether a first cause exists as that is a more logical and scientific question that the ill defined question of whether there is a God or not.

Frank Apisa

Devans99
1.2k

Either there is or is not a "first cause"...or there is a first cause...but EVERYTHING is the first cause — Frank Apisa

I don't understand what you mean. — Devans99

I realize that...which is why I repeat myself with you. I suspect it is why so many others do that same thing.

I was caused by my parents meaning I was not the first cause for example... — Devans

Okay...you were "caused" and I was "caused" and World War II was caused. But that does not mean that existence and all of its components were "caused."

Existence itself is infinite...with nothing causing it. And everything within existence...always was also. — Frank Apisa

If things go back forever, they have no start. If they have no start, there is no middle or end so they don't exist. So things cannot 'always exist'. — Devans

When you say "Things cannot always exist" you are being dogmatic. Fact is...PERHAPS they can.

I cannot think of any way to explain that to you that you will be willing to understand. So I am left with repeating myself. So are the others.

(I suspect that really is what you are attempting to do, Devans. Search your motives. If you are not doing that...none of this stuff makes any sense.) — Frank Apisa

I am trying to establish whether a first cause exists as that is a more logical and scientific question that the ill defined question of whether there is a God or not.

I am not talking about what you say you are doing, Devans. I am speaking about what I suspect you are doing. If I am wrong...I am wrong. Respectfully as possible, though, I cannot take your word for it.

Devans99

When you say "Things cannot always exist" you are being dogmatic. Fact is...PERHAPS they can. — Frank Apisa

I would reference points 1 through 6 here:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5302/an-argument-for-eternalism/p1

As proof that things cannot 'exist forever'. Thomas Aquinas was of the same mind I believe.

whollyrolling

↪Devans99

"Respect" and "taken with a piece of salt" are a contradiction of terms.

Ancient philosophy is a mess of glaring mistakes, scientific ignorance, intellectual deficit, irrationality and devotion to mythology or popularity. Its specialists were drawn from a pool of wealthy nobles and politicians-by-birthright and leans toward controlling "lesser humans".

The reasoning is not sound, it assumes a premise before arguing it via senseless rhetoric. Adherence to these relics of stupidity is the reason the field of philosophy has stagnated and is useless to modern society. It refuses to respond to what has outmoded it. It hasn't adapted to modernity and requires a reformation or faces extinction in the face of scientific discovery.

Devans99

Ancient philosophy is a mess of glaring mistakes, scientific ignorance, intellectual deficit, irrationality and devotion to mythology or popularity. — whollyrolling

In the fullness of time, it will become apparent that much of what we believe today is wrong. That still does not invalidate the usefulness of the portion of todays knowledge that is not wrong. The same argument applies to ancient sources.

whollyrolling

↪Devans99

There is no fullness of time. What we know today is factual, and while it may at some point be made more clear or more efficient, it will remain factual. What we believe is similar to what we have always believed, and that's the problem. Belief is both consistent and unreliable. Things outlive their usefulness all the time, it's nature's way.

Devans99

↪whollyrolling

I would point to the Phlogiston theory as an example of science getting it badly wrong for a long period of time:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phlogiston_theory

Then we have the theory of aether. More recently, I can point to a belief in the existence of Actual Infinity as science going astray.

That is how science works; someone puts up a theory, and some theories get knocked down in the fullness of time. Two steps forward, one step back...

Frank Apisa

Devans99
1.2k

When you say "Things cannot always exist" you are being dogmatic. Fact is...PERHAPS they can. — Frank Apisa

I would reference points 1 through 6 here:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5302/an-argument-for-eternalism/p1

As proof that things cannot 'exist forever'. Thomas Aquinas was of the same mind I believe. — Devans99

Dogma is dogma no matter how often written.

You are suggesting something you cannot know,...and then insisting that you have arrived at it through reason and logic.

You cannot.

The fact that people like Einstein, Sagan, Hawking, Feynman could not do it...should give you pause. But apparently it doesn't.

Strange that!

Devans99

You are suggesting something you cannot know,...and then insisting that you have arrived at it through reason and logic. — Frank Apisa

I would also point to my supporting arguments here:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5242/infinite-being

That existing for infinity is impossible.

whollyrolling

↪Devans99

The scientific method is clear, and the are innumerable examples of it being utilized incorrectly. There are innumerable examples of it being ignored in order to push hypotheses into a category of fact that is religious by nature. There are innumerable examples of corporate, religious or political entities pushing stupidity into the mainstream claiming science as its backbone. There are guesses, and theories, but those aren't science, they're just fictional placeholders. Science hasn't gone wrong, it's been misused.

Devans99

↪whollyrolling

There is a problem with these types of discussions on keeping things scientific rather than religious. Hence I settled on 'first cause' rather than 'God' for the title of the OP. God is not a well defined entity and depending on your definition of God, may not be amendable to the scientific method at all (the 3Os etc...).

Frank Apisa

— Devans99

Devans99
1.2k

You are suggesting something you cannot know,...and then insisting that you have arrived at it through reason and logic. — Frank Apisa

I would also point to my supporting arguments here:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5242/infinite-being

That existing for infinity is impossible. — Devans99

Your "supporting arguments" notwithstanding...you have no idea if you are correct or dead wrong on this issue...and you really need to develop the ethical wherewithal to acknowledge that.

But...if I am correct that this argument of yours is just a backdoor attempt at a proof of a god...

...you will never get there.

We'll just keep talking.

Devans99

↪Frank Apisa

I believe science backs my position, both the Big Bang theory and the theory of Eternal Inflation posit a first cause.

In order to prove God's existence, you must first define the term 'God'. What is your definition?

whollyrolling

↪Devans99

It makes no difference what you call The Grand Mover, its intangibility perseveres through tradition and speculation. That's why there's religion in the first place, because it's impossible to disprove something that doesn't exist. It doesn't matter what face you put on it, the fact remains that you put a face on it, it put no face on itself. It has no face, no description, no presence, no reason, no purpose, no explanation, no motivation, no parameter whatsoever except that which we ascribe to it.

There's no inherent problem with these types of discussions. The problem is that people seem to think they can fit a square peg into a round hole, and when the world hands them a round peg, they quote antiquated intellects who swore by a square peg, they complain that science has no place in the fiction that philosophy represents.

Devans99

↪whollyrolling

I'd reiterate, there are many logical and empirical arguments for a prime mover. I have yet to see a logical argument against a prime mover that passes muster. To disprove God, you could prove the universe is not a creation for example.

The fact that the prime mover has such a history, from Aristotle on, famous philosophers have commented on it. The argument has stood the test of time IMO. It has fascinated mankind down the ages. And it is at heart, a logical argument.

Frank Apisa

Devans99
1.2k
↪Frank Apisa
I believe science backs my position, both the Big Bang theory and the theory of Eternal Inflation posit a first cause. — Devans99

Your guess about what science does is of no consequences.

Devans, the finest minds that have ever existed have pondered the problem you are so sure you have solved. They've all come up short. But you can do it in a casual way...and "prove" it in a short paragraph or two.

C'mon.

In order to prove God's existence, you must first define the term 'God'. What is your definition?

You continue to use "God"...as in "in order to prove God's existence."

Not especially good move.

If you are asking what a god would be to my mind (which is of no consequences) I would suppose some kind of creator entity...a "first cause" IF AND ONLY IF...there is a need for one.

I see absolutely no need for a "first cause." If I came up with a NEED for a "first cause" ...I would be inviting a different infinite regression from the one you suggest.

I've dealt with all sorts of proofs for the existence of gods on the Internet (and before)...but most are more out-front than yours, Devans.

Only you know for sure if I am correct in what suggest about your argument.

Devans99

If you are asking what a god would be to my mind (which is of no consequences) I would suppose some kind of creator entity...a "first cause" IF AND ONLY IF...there is a need for one. — Frank Apisa

In that case then the arguments Thomas Aquinas and I put forward are arguments for God. It's just most people's definition include the 3Os - the attributes of God need a separate thread probably.

I see absolutely no need for a "first cause." If I came up with a NEED for a "first cause" ...I would be inviting a different infinite regression from the one you suggest. — Frank Apisa

But with a timeless first cause, there is no infinite regress.

Frank Apisa

Devans99
1.2k

If you are asking what a god would be to my mind (which is of no consequences) I would suppose some kind of creator entity...a "first cause" IF AND ONLY IF...there is a need for one. — Frank Apisa

In that case then the arguments Thomas Aquinas and I put forward are arguments for God. It's just most people's definition include the 3Os - the attributes of God need a separate thread probably.

I see absolutely no need for a "first cause." If I came up with a NEED for a "first cause" ...I would be inviting a different infinite regression from the one you suggest. — Frank Apisa

But with a timeless first cause, there is no infinite regress. — Devans99

Let the "timeless first cause" be EVERYTHING. All of existence.

The "need" for a first cause is manufactured. There is no such need.

Devans99

↪Frank Apisa

But time has a start. Suggesting 'everything' (in terms of all particles) had a start co-incidental with that... the Big Bang. The Big Bang sure looks like a first cause to me.

The way time works, if you don't have a first cause, you have an infinite regress, which is impossible.

whollyrolling

↪Devans99

Claiming that there's empirical data supporting the existence of anything supernatural sounds fanatical and is just plain false. There's no reasonable argument in support of a Creator of any kind, and there's no reasonable argument in support of the universe being a Creation.

The problem with arguing against gods, or other supernatural phenomena or entities or whatever else the imagination can and will produce, is that every time an argument is presented, the goal posts can and will be moved and the entity or phenomenon or any of their descriptors can and will become less and less descript, more and more vacuous, until it's impossible to argue against something so incomprehensibly vacuous.

That's the cunning of spirituality, that it can't be contested because it's a self-perpetuating nothingness and an everlasting excuse for ignorance.

Devans99

↪whollyrolling

Well there is the Big Bang. Looks unnatural. Natural things come in pluralities whereas the Big Bang is a singleton. Unnatural. Also very low entropy at the Big Bang, unnatural. Also the way space itself is expanding at just the right speed to stop gravity causing a collapse is also unnatural - not any normal sort of explosion.

Think about it this way, the question 'was the universe created?' is a 50/50 call, so it should not be likely dismissed.

whollyrolling

It's hard to watch all the theist and spiritualist arms getting so sore from pulling invisible rabbits out of invisible hats all day.

Frank Apisa

Devans99
1.2k
↪Frank Apisa
But time has a start. Suggesting 'everything' (in terms of all particles) had a start co-incidental with that... the Big Bang. The Big Bang sure looks like a first cause to me.

The way time works, if you don't have a first cause, you have an infinite regress, which is impossible. — Devans99

It is "impossible" if all the considerations and assumptions you are making are correct.

They may not be.

I don't mean to be a pest, Devans. Just going with my feelings here.

Of course, I may be wrong. I acknowledge that.

You may have solved a problem that has stumped the greatest minds ever to live on the planet. And done it so easily. Able to sum it up in just a few short paragraphs.

You may have.

Those of us speaking with you about your "solution" might just be lucky to have been here to see it.

Was There A First Cause? Reviewing The Five Ways

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions