According to the argument of motion from Aquinas, why can’t there be an infinite regress of movers? Why does it have to stop at one unmoved one?
The reason philosophy avoids any “infinite regress” is that it leaves us with situations which are redundant, unanswerable, impossible, or useless. Aristotle first tackled this problem in his own philosophy, and it had a great influence on St. Thomas Aquinas’ cosmological arguments.
The reason the universe “has to” stop at an “unmoved mover” (another way to say this is a first cause) is because we would never have a real answer to one of the most important philosophical questions: “Why is there something rather than nothing?” In other words, why is it that the universe exists at all? That is the question that the first cause attempts to answer.
An infinite series of causes indicates that each cause in the series came into being because of the one before it. In other words, cause Z exists because of cause Y, cause Y exists because of cause X, etc. No matter how far you push those causes backward, you’re only delaying the inevitable question: How did it get there in the first place? No matter how far back you go, something had to begin setting things in motion, or else nothing would be in motion at all.
But what if, like the pre-classical Greeks or the Buddhists, we take the nature of the universe to be cyclical? What if all the causes in the universe are just moving in an endless cycle of living and dying, coming into existence and ceasing to exist?
The answer is that we would still have the same problem as before. There’s no place in that cycle where anything “new” is introduced–it’s a closed system. Even if the universe was a giant cycle… We know that the cycle is there, but that doesn’t answer how the cycle got there.
The laws of physics (specifically thermodynamics and entropy) also show us why an infinitely cyclical or an infinitely regressing universe is a problem: in a closed system, matter cannot sustain itself infinitely because eventually physical matter will be converted into heat and various forms of energy. Funnily enough, that is also why inventing a true “perpetual motion machine” is impossible: without new matter coming from somewhere, whatever matter is present will expend its potential energy in the form of kinetic energy until eventually no matter is left. If we take those facts to their logical conclusion, then even scientifically the idea of a universe which has always existed without any beginning doesn’t make sense.
Chris Cammarata
Disclaimer!
The views, thoughts, opinions presented here belong solely to the author and are not necessarily the official view of the Jesus youth movement.
Hey thanks for the reply!
On the second para, just because the infinite movers theory doesn’t answer “Why is there something rather than nothing?” doesn’t mean its not true. Even if it destroys the most important qu in philosophy that doesn’t nullify its possibility. What you’re essentially saying is that the reason there has to be a first cause is because it answers some great qu in philosophy. Let’s assume for a second that the infinite movers theory was right. Now that there is no answer to this great qu you’re not going to believe in a first cause because you know its wrong even if it answers your qu. Truth precedes the answer to a qu someone asks, it may be there isn’t an answer.
Tbh the actual problem lies in the qu you asked “Why is there something rather than nothing?” as the question assumes there is such a reason to why we’re here and all. There may be no reason why we’re here, and you’ve said nothing to prove that’s wrong. This is trickier to get but its more direct reason.
Same kinda issue with your 3rd para. If you ask me “How did it get there in the first place?” I’ll say I don’t know. But if you go on to say the first cause argument, you’re answering the question, yes, but assuming I’m wrong just cause I don’t answer your qu. I’m repeating myself but the problem lies in the qu. You’ve assumed here there is a first place.
Ok your last actually does address (and debunk) my argument. I’m no physicist so I’m gonna have to take your word on that.
This isn’t an argument but I’ve spoken to physics teachers how have discussed the possibility of an infinite universe while knowing the laws of whatever lol. Again I’m not saying you’re wrong and an argument from authority is dumb, cause authority can be dumb, but I’ll look into it.
Okay so I’ve looked into it and thought a bit about it. So if the Universe is infinite in time then there was an infinite amount of time before us. The law of entropy states its always increasing. And am I right in assuming that you’ve said this would result in all matter going to kinetic energy because that’s what we’ve observed right?
I’m no physics genius so my infinities might be disgustingly wrong but take the graph of arctan x. Take the x axis as time and the y axis as entropy (if entropy is always +ve just add some constant). Entropy is defined throughout infinity and is always increasing, but it doesn’t mean it reaches infinity throughout its time period. Yes if entropy went to infinity all matter would go to kinetic energy but we don’t know that, all we know is if its increasing.
Look if it seems I’m too dumb to understand entropy from what I’ve just said, you’re probably right. I tried lol.
Anyway thanks for taking the time and sorry its longgggg. Hope to see your reply. Have a good one.
Ok reading through my answer I need to make something clear.
The initial standpoint to an argument is I don’t know. I’m saying I don’t if there is a first cause or not. What that means is that if you come and say that there IS a first cause then you’re saying that anything that contradicts this must be wrong. There cannot be two truths. Therefore if I say there’s a possibility that the infinite movers could occur then the onus is on you to say its wrong. I’m not trying to prove the infinite movers theory just saying that its just as possible as the first mover, neither is more right than the other.
An aside but that thing, complemented by Dr. Nelson, what is that? Its just saying infinite movers is a logical impossibility without saying why. Its acc funny to read how he just asserts things without any reason. Had a good laugh but its just dumb. What was the point he’s saying?
Anyway have a good day mate. Looking forward to the reply!!!
Hi Neil,
Sorry that this response is coming so late! I was finally able to take the time to read your comments and make a response.
It sounds like you’ve already resolved some of your concerns, so I’ll just give a quick clarification on infinite regress and first causes. As far as infinite regress, I will say that infinite regress has been commonly held to be a logical impossibility going back even as far as Greek philosophy. It doesn’t really “destroy” the question of why the universe exists. It’s more like a demonstration of why the universe must have an origin. Saying that the universe must have a “first cause” is not trying to make a theory fit into our preconceived notions of how the universe must work (i.e. “begging the question”). Rather, it’s presenting a metaphysical problematic, because saying that the universe has no first cause presents a logical issue. Even the greatest philosophers in human history wrestled with this question of how everything in the universe got here. You can say that “there may be no reason why we’re here,” but even if existence has no value… the universe still exists.
If you prefer the scientific approach to show why it is illogical, the laws of thermodynamics (that I mentioned at the end of the article) are just one proof of this. We can also use Newton’s first law of motion: “An object at rest stays at rest unless an external force acts upon it.” An object in a state of “100% potential energy” (if you will) can never gain any kinetic energy unless another force acts upon it. If everything in the universe was in a state of complete rest, then nothing would ever move, and nothing would have any kinetic energy whatsoever. Something “had” to set the universe *moving*–like tipping the first domino in a chain. Also note that these scientific demonstrations cannot answer “why” we are here–only “that” we are here.
The questions you are bringing up are excellent questions! They bear similarity to the questions posed by Skepticism. If you are seriously interested in this topic, consider looking at how philosophers across the centuries responded to Skepticism. There are both modern and ancient responses, and some even deal with this matter directly (for example in Aristotle). I hope my response to you has been respectful and that it helps alleviate any confusion!
Like!! I blog quite often and I genuinely thank you for your information. The article has truly peaked my interest.