First Mover Argument Analysis

III. Survey of Three Objections

A. What is the Cause of the First Mover?

One objection to Aquinas first mover argument states the argument stipulates everything needs a cause but the conclusion is there is something God which doesn’t need a cause. Premises 2-4 of Aquinas’ argument require categorically “nothing can be the cause of its own change” without explicit exception. e.g. The God Delusion; Richard Dawkins (Houghton Mifflin Company; New York 2006) p. 91 et seq.

Aquinas replies to this objection by showing the argument doesn’t use the premise that everything needs a cause - only everything created or imperfect needs a cause. Everything in motion needs a cause. Everything dependent needs a cause. Commentary on Aristotle's Physics; Thomas

Sequential causation is like a chain of dominoes. After you knock over the first domino you start a chain reaction of dominoes hitting other dominoes. You could destroy the first domino after you’ve pushed it since it is no longer needed to keep the whole set of dominoes falling. Aquinas believed that sequential causes in the past like a set of dominoes could have occurred for all eternity. See eg New Proofs for the Existence of God: Contributions of Contemporary Physics and Philosophy Fr. Robert Spitzer Wm. B. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 2010) 177-180.

Aquinas argues that God explains the existence of simultaneous causation. An example of simultaneous causation is a hockey player shooting a puck. The act of the shooting the puck isn’t as simple as one act. The puck is moved by the hockey stick but the hockey stick is simultaneously moved by the swing of the shaft; which is moved from the top of the stick; and the top of the stick is simultaneously moved by the flexing of the player’s muscles which can’t flex without nerve signals from the player’s brain

C.1.

The concept of cause is analogical - it differs somewhat but not completely from one example to another. Human fatherhood is like divine fatherhood and physical causality is like divine causality. The way an artist conceives a symphony in his mind isn’t the same as the way a woman conceives a baby in her body either but we call both causes. We don’t fully understand how God causes the universe but the term remains meaningful. A cause is the sine qua non for an effect: if no cause no effect. If no creator no creation. If there’s no God then no universe.

In reply to Hume’s fallacy of composition claim why can’t we ask the question of what made multiple beings? It can make sense to seek a full explanation of every ‘thing’ or series of things. Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz would challenge Hume’s logic through his principle of sufficient reason - partial explanations of something are only going to be partial. Explaining the lighting of a candle by holding a lighter to the wick is not a complete explanation. It’s valid and necessary to look for full explanations for every event be it a single one or a series.

Reply to III.