William Lane Craig doesn't usually write much about the argument from motion (AFM) when presenting the cosmological argument. However, I think there is a way to understand the AFM in a way that compliments one of Craig's points.
For proponents of the AFM, such as myself, if there is motion in an interconnected whole, then the interconnected whole must have a First Mover. For example, a watch without a spring would not be in motion even if there were infinitely-many gears. A train without an engine would not be in motion even if there were infinitely-many boxcars. By analogy, the cosmos would not be in motion without a First Mover even if there were infinitely-many bodies. Therefore, given the motion of the cosmos, it follows via induction that a First Mover exists.
Now enters the Craig-style argument. Given that the First Mover is the cause of motion in the cosmos, the First Mover must transcend the cosmos (all physical space, time, matter and energy). Hence, the First Mover must be timeless, changeless (for time is a measure of change), and immaterial. It must also be personal. For, there are two things we know of that are immaterial: abstract objects and minds.* Yet, abstract objects do not stand in causal relations, so nothing abstract could cause the motion of the cosmos, or of anything for that matter. Therefore, the First Mover is a timeless, changeless, immaterial mind, which (per the Angelic Doctor) "everyone understands to be God."
*Of course, if one can coherently propose another alternative, then the argument about the First Mover being a mind will not necessarily follow.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
"Of course, if one can coherently propose another alternative, then the argument about the First Mover being a mind will not necessarily follow."
ReplyDeleteThose Who Need At All Costs To Avoid God can generally be counted upon to attempt to avoid the conclusion of this argument by asserting that the First Mover could be a "principle" or a "force," and so that it does not necessarily follow that the First Mover in a mind.
And, when one points out that a "principle," being an abstraction, has no causal power, and that a "force" is among That To Be Explained, they will "reason," "Well, it could have been something else."
"Therefore, given the motion of the cosmos, it follows via induction that a First Mover exists."
Really, induction?
That's the kind of response I generally anticipate whenever I listen to one of Craig's debates. He would say that we don't know of any immaterial (non-mental) principles that stand in causal relations, and so the best explanation is that the cause of the universe is a mind. I'm not necessarily persuaded that this is a good argument, though.
ReplyDeleteWith respect to your last question, Thomas makes use of both inductive and deductive arguments throughout his writings (as does Aristotle). One may argue deductively that a First Mover exists, and I have done so elsewhere, but I also find that inductive analogies (e.g. the watch and the train) usually connect with people more.