Objection to the First Way

“You’ve just proved that every series of movers terminates in something that everyone calls God. Very well, let’s cash in your theory in a particular case. There is a car going by, and here are my wiggling fingers. Just take me back through the steps to your divine mover, please. Wouldn’t this have been a much easier way of progressing anyway? You wouldn’t even have needed to go through an induction of many cases – just one case would do! In other words, you’ve argued for a way to conclude to the existence of God from the falling of a leaf, and yet no one has ever done so. But there can’t be a general idea that is never cashed in in some definite case. Therefore, the First Way is false.”


1 Comment

  1. Boethius said,

    December 28, 2014 at 10:10 am

    Finding the “steps going back” would be impossible when thought of as a timeline. However when explained to the questioner that the “steps” he is imagining are steps of actuality, not sequence, then the falling leaf from the stages of the tree’s development, based on the tree’s cycle of life following its nature, a life that needs a proportional cause of life, etc, becomes better understandable, and also makes it clearer that direct diagramming of the steps is near impossible.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: