For the first proof the issue arises with potential and actuality. We preconditioning the natural process of motion within time. But, according to Ibn Sina and Rushd, God is not bound within time. However, there seems to be a deeper contradiction than that. Aristotle, Aquinas and Ibn Sina believe that the universe is eternal. Therefore, Aquinas is contradicting himself in the claim that god is the prime mover because movement itself is eternal. Aristotle explains this in Physics by stating that an object can’t move before it comes into existence, and the act of coming to existence is itself movement. So, if the process of motion according to Aquinas as “potentiality and actuality” is within time, god is not within time, and the existence of movement is eternal, then how could there be a first
For the first proof the issue arises with potential and actuality. We preconditioning the natural process of motion within time. But, according to Ibn Sina and Rushd, God is not bound within time. However, there seems to be a deeper contradiction than that. Aristotle, Aquinas and Ibn Sina believe that the universe is eternal. Therefore, Aquinas is contradicting himself in the claim that god is the prime mover because movement itself is eternal. Aristotle explains this in Physics by stating that an object can’t move before it comes into existence, and the act of coming to existence is itself movement. So, if the process of motion according to Aquinas as “potentiality and actuality” is within time, god is not within time, and the existence of movement is eternal, then how could there be a first