Thomas Aquinas was an extremely influential philosopher in the 11th century, and one of the many theories he was known for was the “five ways”. The first way, which I will be endorsing, is a practical observation regarding all motions in the world. An unmoved mover exists in all of our lives, any motion that takes place in the universe has an external force acting on it, everything has the potentiality and actuality to change; however, as you continue to back track to what caused originally caused the motion you will reach the unmoved mover, and this consists of any type of change, not just motion; therefore, it is obligatory to arrive to a first mover, put in motion by no other, this is God.
The first way is known as the argument from motion. Aquinas …show more content…
It makes sense that, for example, if I were to pick up and move a book, it would be moved by my hand, which is moved by muscles, which are being stimulated by nerves, etc. Every motion is being put into motion by some sort of extrinsic force, and this process does not go on indefinitely; therefore, a first element must exist, an unmoved mover, to explain all of the actualizations taking place within the universe. It is not only change of place that falls into the argument from motion; it means any kind of change. Growing in knowledge, being born and dying, or even eating chocolate cake are all different forms of motion. The fact I can physically see motion with my own eyes leads me to believe that there must be some sort of un-energized energizer that explains all of the actualizations that occur in the universe.
One may argue: If everything has a cause, then what caused God? My reply would be that God is not a human being. A human being has both potentiality and actuality, while God has no potentiality, he receives no outside influence. Actuality would not even exist if it were not for God, as there must be something with no potentiality to cause the
The first way is known as the argument from motion. Aquinas …show more content…
It makes sense that, for example, if I were to pick up and move a book, it would be moved by my hand, which is moved by muscles, which are being stimulated by nerves, etc. Every motion is being put into motion by some sort of extrinsic force, and this process does not go on indefinitely; therefore, a first element must exist, an unmoved mover, to explain all of the actualizations taking place within the universe. It is not only change of place that falls into the argument from motion; it means any kind of change. Growing in knowledge, being born and dying, or even eating chocolate cake are all different forms of motion. The fact I can physically see motion with my own eyes leads me to believe that there must be some sort of un-energized energizer that explains all of the actualizations that occur in the universe.
One may argue: If everything has a cause, then what caused God? My reply would be that God is not a human being. A human being has both potentiality and actuality, while God has no potentiality, he receives no outside influence. Actuality would not even exist if it were not for God, as there must be something with no potentiality to cause the