Argument from Motion

1. Introduction

The Argument from Motion (also called the First Way) is a classical argument in natural theology that reasons from the existence of motion or change in the world to the existence of a first unmoved mover. It appears in Thomas Aquinas’s Summa Theologiae as the first of his Five Ways to demonstrate God’s existence and has since become one of the most discussed forms of the cosmological argument.

In its traditional Thomistic form, the argument does not restrict “motion” to spatial movement but treats it as any change—specifically, the transition from potentiality to actuality. Aquinas proposes that things in the world are observed to change, that whatever changes is changed by another, and that a certain kind of causal series involved in such change cannot regress infinitely. From this he infers the existence of a first principle that causes motion without itself undergoing change.

The Argument from Motion occupies a distinctive place among theistic arguments because it relies on a specific metaphysical framework, largely inherited from Aristotle, involving the notions of act and potency and of hierarchically ordered causal series. Proponents see it as a strictly deductive, metaphysical proof that does not depend on empirical science in a narrow sense, while critics often challenge both its metaphysical assumptions and its alleged independence from scientific developments.

Over time, the First Way has been reformulated and interpreted in multiple ways. Some authors preserve Aquinas’s original terminology and scholastic concepts; others attempt to translate it into contemporary idioms of metaphysical grounding, necessary beings, or fundamental reality. The argument has also been a focal point for debates about infinite regress, the nature of causation, and the conceptual coherence of a purely actual being.

This entry surveys the origin, structure, interpretations, objections, and ongoing philosophical significance of the Argument from Motion within the wider landscape of philosophy of religion and metaphysics.

2. Origin and Attribution

The Argument from Motion is most closely associated with Thomas Aquinas (1224/5–1274), who presents it in Summa Theologiae I, q. 2, a. 3 as the first of his Five Ways. The standard attribution identifies Aquinas as the architect of the argument in its Thomistic form, but its roots extend back to Aristotle and to later medieval developments.

Aristotelian Root

Aquinas’s First Way explicitly echoes Aristotle’s reasoning in Physics VIII and Metaphysics XII, where Aristotle argues from the existence of motion to an unmoved mover. Aquinas adapts this framework, integrating it into a Christian conception of God and altering aspects of Aristotle’s treatment, for example by embedding the argument into a broader doctrine of creation and divine simplicity.

Aquinas’s Role

While Aquinas acknowledges his reliance on Aristotle, many scholars regard the First Way as a distinctively Thomistic synthesis, characterized by:

• A sharper articulation of the act–potency distinction
• The emphasis on essentially ordered causal series
• The integration of the unmoved mover into a full doctrine of classical theism

Later Attributions and Labels

Subsequent traditions have referred to the argument by several names:

Some historians attribute varied formulations to later scholastics such as Francisco Suárez, who reworked cosmological reasoning in a more systematic metaphysical idiom, but these are usually treated as developments rather than alternative origin points.

There is limited debate over Aquinas’s authorship of the First Way itself, though scholars differ on how closely it mirrors Aristotle and on whether it should primarily be classified as an Aristotelian or a distinctively Thomistic argument.

3. Historical and Intellectual Context

The Argument from Motion emerged in the High Middle Ages, within the milieu of Latin scholasticism and intense engagement with newly translated Aristotelian texts.

13th‑Century Setting

Aquinas composed the Summa Theologiae c. 1265–1274, during a period marked by:

• The translation of Aristotle’s works (often via Arabic and Hebrew intermediaries)
• University debates in Paris and elsewhere about the compatibility of Aristotelian philosophy with Christian doctrine
• Controversies over the eternity of the world, the nature of creation, and the role of reason in theology

The Argument from Motion participates in the broader project of natural theology, aiming to provide rational demonstrations of God’s existence accessible to human reason without appeal to revelation.

Dialogue with Earlier Traditions

Aquinas’s reasoning builds on and reacts to multiple intellectual streams:

Aquinas negotiates tensions between Aristotelian eternalism and the Christian doctrine of creatio ex nihilo. Unlike some earlier Christian thinkers who were wary of Aristotle’s physics, he employs Aristotelian metaphysics to support, rather than undermine, Christian theism.

Place within the Five Ways

Historically, the First Way is often read together with the other Five Ways, which move from different features of the world (efficient causality, contingency, gradation, teleology) to God. Medieval and early modern commentators debated:

• Whether the First Way is logically prior to the others
• If it presupposes prior knowledge of act and potency or of God’s existence
• How it relates to proofs found in other works, such as De ente et essentia

The First Way thus stands at the crossroads of medieval metaphysics, theology, and the reception of Aristotelian science, providing a paradigmatic example of the scholastic attempt to harmonize reason and faith.

4. Aristotelian Background: Act and Potency

The Argument from Motion presupposes the Aristotelian distinction between act (actuality) and potency (potentiality), developed in Physics and Metaphysics. Understanding this framework is crucial for grasping Aquinas’s use of “motion” as change from potency to act.

Act and Potency

In Aristotelian metaphysics:

• Potency is a capacity or real possibility for a thing to be otherwise (e.g., a block of marble’s potential to become a statue).
• Act is the realized, determinate state corresponding to that potential (the finished statue).

Aristotle introduces this pair to explain change without collapsing into Parmenidean denial of change or Heraclitean flux. Change is described as:

"

“the actuality of what exists in potency, insofar as it is in potency.”
— Aristotle, Physics III.1

Motion as Change

For Aristotle, motion (kinesis) encompasses not only local movement but all forms of change: quantitative (growth), qualitative (alteration), and substantial (generation and corruption). Motion involves:

1. A subject possessing a certain potency
2. The actualization of that potency by something already in act

This yields the key intuition that what is in potency requires something in act to actualize it.

Causal Structure

Aristotle links act and potency to a structured account of causation:

Aquinas adopts and extends these notions, arguing that a special kind of causal series of actualizers—essentially ordered series—cannot proceed to infinity without a first actualizer.

Interpretive Issues

Historical and contemporary interpreters differ on:

• Whether act and potency are ontological realities or descriptive tools
• How tightly Aristotle’s own unmoved mover argument depends on this framework
• To what extent Aquinas modifies Aristotelian concepts, especially when he connects them to creation and pure act (actus purus)

Nevertheless, the act–potency schema remains the standard backdrop against which the First Way is usually read.

5. Aquinas’s Text in the Summa Theologiae

The canonical formulation of the Argument from Motion appears in Summa Theologiae I, question 2, article 3, where Aquinas asks “Whether God exists?” (Utrum Deus sit). The First Way is presented succinctly as part of the respondeo (the main answer).

The Latin Passage

A central portion of the text reads:

"

“Primum autem et manifestius via est, quae sumitur ex parte motus. Certum est enim, et sensu constat, aliqua moveri in hoc mundo. Omne autem quod movetur, ab alio movetur… Non potest autem in infinitum sic processus in moventibus et motis; quia sic non esset aliquod primum movens; et per consequens nec aliquod aliud movens; quia moventia secunda non movent nisi per hoc quod moventur a primo movente… Ergo necesse est devenire ad aliquod primum movens, quod a nullo movetur; et hoc omnes intelligunt Deum.”

— Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae I, q. 2, a. 3

Features of the Presentation

Several features of Aquinas’s brief treatment are widely noted:

• Brevity and compression: The argument is sketched rather than fully defended. Aquinas assumes prior familiarity with Aristotelian doctrine from his commentaries and other works.
• Appeal to sense experience: He begins with “it is certain and evident to our senses that some things are moved.”
• Key theses:
  • Whatever is moved is moved by another
  • An infinite regress of movers in the relevant sense is impossible
  • Therefore there must be a first unmoved mover

Context within the Article

In the structure of ST I, q. 2, a. 3, Aquinas:

1. States the question (whether God exists)
2. Presents objections denying God’s existence
3. Gives a brief sed contra citing Exodus 3:14 (“I am who am”)
4. Offers the respondeo, in which he lists five “ways,” beginning with the Argument from Motion
5. Replies to the objections, often in terms that presuppose the First Way’s conclusion

The First Way is thus one component in a larger dialectical procedure. Later Thomistic commentators expand on the compressed reasoning by drawing on Aquinas’s other writings, especially the Commentary on the Physics and De potentia.

Textual Debates

Scholars debate:

• Whether the First Way in the Summa is merely a summary of more detailed arguments elsewhere
• How exactly to reconstruct the suppressed steps (for example, the transition from a first mover to pure actuality)
• To what degree the text presupposes the eternity or finitude of the world

These interpretive questions significantly shape contemporary reconstructions of the argument.

6. The Argument Stated Informally

Informally, the Argument from Motion proceeds from familiar observations about change to the postulation of a first unmoved mover as the ultimate source of those changes.

Everyday Intuition

A simple way to present the core idea is:

1. Things in the world are constantly changing—heating and cooling, growing and decaying, moving from place to place.
2. Whenever something changes, that change involves the realization of a potential (what could be) into an actual state (what now is).
3. A potential cannot actualize itself; it must be actualized by something already in act.
4. In many cases, the actualizer itself is also changing or depends on something else to be able to cause change.
5. We then seem to have a hierarchy of changers, where each member derives its capacity to cause change from another.

The informal intuition is that such a hierarchy cannot go on downwards without limit, at least in the relevant “here‑and‑now” sense. If there were no foundational source of actuality that did not itself derive its causal power from something further, then there would be no change at all, contrary to experience.

Everyday Analogies

Defenders often employ analogies:

These analogies are meant to illustrate a dependent series of movers, in which later members act only by virtue of an earlier member that is the source of motion.

Informal Conclusion

From these considerations, the informal conclusion is:

• There must be at least one first mover that causes change without itself needing to be moved or actualized by something else.
• This first mover is said to be unmoved not in the sense of being inert, but in the sense of not undergoing change or receiving actuality from another.

Aquinas then identifies this first unmoved mover with what is commonly called God, though the move from “unmoved mover” to “God” involves further reasoning developed elsewhere.

7. Formal Logical Structure

The Argument from Motion is typically presented as a deductive argument with a series of premises leading to the existence of a first unmoved mover. While Aquinas’s original text is compact, commentators reconstruct a more explicit structure along lines such as the following:

1. Existence of motion

   • Premise: In the world, some things are in motion (undergoing change from potency to act).

2. Principle of causality for motion

   • Premise: Whatever is in motion is put in motion by another.
   • Rationale: Nothing can be, in the same respect and in the same way, both in potency and in act with respect to the same feature, so it cannot actualize itself.

3. Dichotomy of movers

   • Premise: That which moves another is itself either moved by something further or is unmoved.

4. Formation of a causal series

   • Premise: For any moved mover, we can consider the series of movers upon which it depends here and now for its causal activity (an essentially ordered series).

5. Rejection of an infinite regress

   • Premise: An infinite regress of movers in such an essentially ordered series is impossible.
   • Rationale: In such a series, all causal power is derivative; without a first member possessing causal power non‑derivatively, no member would have causal power and thus no motion would occur.

6. Existence of a first unmoved mover

   • From (1) and (5): Since motion exists, and an infinite regress in the relevant series is impossible, there must be a first unmoved mover in any such series.

7. Characterization of the first mover

   • Further premise (often made explicit by commentators): A first unmoved mover in this context must be pure act (actus purus), without unrealized potencies.

8. Identification with God

   • Conclusion: This first unmoved mover, pure actuality and ultimate source of all motion, is what people call God.

Different authors emphasize different steps or add clarifying sub‑premises (e.g., about the nature of derivative causal powers). Some formalize the argument using modal or grounding terminology, but most reconstructions retain the basic pattern from motion to first mover.

8. Essential vs Accidental Causal Series

Aquinas’s rejection of an infinite regress hinges on a distinction, drawn from Aristotelian–scholastic metaphysics, between essentially ordered and accidentally ordered causal series.

Accidentally Ordered Series

An accidentally ordered (or temporally ordered) series is one in which earlier causes need not continue to exist or act for later causes to operate.

• Example: Generations of parents and children. A grandparent causes the existence of a parent, who in turn causes the child, but the grandparent may die before the child is born.
• The child’s present existence does not here and now depend on the grandparent’s present activity.

In such series, an infinite temporal regress is, in Aquinas’s view, not obviously impossible. He even holds that, as a matter of philosophical argument, the world could have had no temporal beginning.

Essentially Ordered Series

An essentially ordered (or hierarchical, per se) series is one where later members derive their causal efficacy here and now from earlier members.

• Example often given by Thomists: A hand moves a stick, which moves a stone. The stick moves the stone only because it is being moved by the hand at this very moment.
• If the first member ceased to act, the later members would immediately cease to act as causes.

Key features:

Aquinas’s claim is that an infinite regress in such a series is impossible because then all causal power would be purely derivative, with no non‑derivative source. Without a first cause that has causal power in its own right, the series as a whole could not function.

Interpretive Variations

Different interpreters elaborate this distinction in various ways:

• Some emphasize instrumental causality, where instruments operate only by virtue of a principal cause.
• Others model the series in terms of ontological dependence or metaphysical grounding rather than temporal priority.

Critics question whether the distinction is sharp or coherent, while defenders see it as indispensable to capturing the specific sort of dependence relevant to the Argument from Motion.

9. Key Premises Examined

The cogency of the Argument from Motion turns on several central premises. Philosophers have analyzed and debated these in detail.

1. “Some things are in motion”

This premise asserts the existence of change. It is generally uncontroversial, though some have noted:

• Radical skeptical or Parmenidean positions that deny real change.
• Views in modern physics where change is described differently (e.g., in block universe models).

Most discussions treat the premise as empirically and phenomenologically secure.

2. “Whatever is in motion is put in motion by another”

This principle presupposes the act–potency framework: a thing cannot both be purely in potency and in act with respect to the same aspect at the same time.

Supporters argue that:

• A merely potential state cannot bring itself into actuality.
• Even in self‑initiated actions (e.g., a person moving themselves), different aspects or faculties of the agent are distinguished (will, muscle, etc.), so that one aspect actualizes another.

Critics challenge:

• Whether the principle is empirically or conceptually necessary.
• Whether self‑causation in some form is really impossible.
• How this claim relates to modern physics, where some motions appear not to require concurrent external forces.

3. The structure of essentially ordered series

A key explanatory claim is that in such series:

• Later members have only derivative causal powers.
• If there were no first non‑derivative cause, no member would have causal power.

Supporters appeal to analogies (tools and artisans, links in a chain) and to the idea that explanation must eventually terminate in something fundamental.

Critics question:

• Whether derivative causal powers are intelligible without a first cause.
• Whether chains of dependence could be infinitely long yet still functional, perhaps like an infinite but well‑ordered series of contingent facts.

4. Impossibility of infinite regress in essentially ordered series

This is perhaps the most controversial premise. Defenders argue that an infinite regress of purely derivative causes would be explanatorily empty. Opponents propose models where:

• Infinite dependence structures are metaphysically possible.
• Explanation may not require a terminating first member but only local sufficiency.

5. From first mover to pure act

A further premise, often developed outside the core text, is that a first unmoved mover must be without potency (pure act). This claim rests on the idea that any unrealized potency would require further actualization, undermining the “unmoved” status.

Here, debates focus on whether the move from unmoved mover to purely actual being is logically forced or represents an additional metaphysical commitment.

10. From Unmoved Mover to God

Aquinas does not stop with the bare claim that there is a first unmoved mover; he maintains that this being possesses the attributes traditionally ascribed to God in classical theism. However, most of the detailed derivation of divine attributes occurs outside the concise First Way passage.

From First Mover to Pure Act

The initial step is to argue that the first unmoved mover must be pure actuality (actus purus):

• If it had any unrealized potencies, those potencies would require actualization by another, contradicting its status as first unmoved mover.
• Therefore, the first mover is completely devoid of potentiality and cannot undergo change.

Metaphysical Attributes

Classical Thomistic theology draws out multiple attributes from the notion of pure act:

This process is often called the via remotionis (way of remotion), where limiting features are successively removed from the first cause.

Personal and Theistic Characteristics

A further set of arguments, developed in Aquinas’s broader corpus, aims to show that the first unmoved mover is:

• Intellective: possessing knowledge, since it is the source of all forms and perfections.
• Volitional: able to act by will rather than necessity alone.
• Good and perfect: as the fullness of actuality, lacking nothing.

These attributes connect the metaphysical first principle to the personal God of Abrahamic traditions. Proponents maintain that, taken together, the properties deduced from pure act correspond to the classical theistic conception of God.

Disputed Transitions

Critics question several transitions:

• Whether pure act must be unique, rather than a plurality of unmoved movers (as some read Aristotle).
• Whether the move from a metaphysical first cause to a morally perfect, personal deity is successful.
• Whether the identification with the God of specific religious traditions involves additional theological premises.

Nonetheless, within Thomistic thought, the First Way is typically viewed as the starting point of a systematic natural theology that culminates in a richly articulated doctrine of God.

11. Major Interpretations and Variations

The Argument from Motion has been interpreted and reformulated in multiple ways across historical periods and philosophical traditions.

Scholastic Thomism

Classical Thomists interpret the First Way within a robust Aristotelian–Scholastic framework:

• Emphasis on act/potency, substantial forms, and essentially ordered series.
• Detailed derivations from unmoved mover to pure act and thence to the full set of divine attributes.

Commentators such as Cajetan and John of St Thomas systematized and technically refined Aquinas’s brief argument.

Suárezian and Baroque Scholastic Variants

Later scholastics like Francisco Suárez developed cosmological arguments that absorb aspects of the First Way but shift emphasis:

• Greater focus on efficient causality and contingency.
• Less explicit use of motion per se, more on dependence of finite beings.

Some scholars see this as a bridge toward early modern rationalist arguments.

Early Modern and Rationalist Re‑readings

With the rise of mechanistic physics, motion was increasingly understood in purely kinematic terms. Some early modern thinkers:

• Downplayed the act–potency vocabulary.
• Interpreted the argument more in terms of conservation of motion or first cause of motion in a mechanical universe.

These versions sometimes differ substantially from Aquinas’s metaphysical intent.

Neo‑Thomist and Analytic Reconstructions

In the 20th and 21st centuries, Neo‑Thomists and analytically trained philosophers have offered new presentations:

Some reconstructions recast the First Way as an argument from actualization or from the existence of composite beings to a simple, purely actual reality.

Non‑Thomistic Appropriations

A few philosophers and theologians sympathetic to cosmological reasoning but not to full Thomism have adapted the argument:

• By weakening or dropping the act–potency scheme.
• By presenting it as an argument from change or causal dependence to a necessary being or fundamental ground, without endorsing classical theistic conclusions.

Critical Interpretive Traditions

Critical readings range from Kantian dismissals of metaphysical proofs to Humean skepticism about causation. Some contemporary philosophers interpret the First Way as:

• A historically important but outdated expression of pre‑modern science.
• A sophisticated metaphysical thesis about explanatory priority, separable from medieval physics.

These divergent interpretations shape how the argument is evaluated and whether it is seen as still philosophically live.

12. Engagement with Modern Science

The relationship between the Argument from Motion and modern science—especially post‑Newtonian physics and contemporary cosmology—is a central topic in recent discussions.

Motion in Classical Mechanics

Newtonian mechanics redefined motion as change in position over time, governed by laws of inertia and force:

• Newton’s first law: A body in motion continues in uniform motion unless acted on by a net external force.
• This appears to conflict with the premise that “whatever is in motion is moved by another,” if “moved” is read as “continuously pushed.”

Thomists respond that Aquinas’s “motion” means any change from potency to act, not merely locomotion, and that the relevant “mover” is the actualizer of a potency, not necessarily a continuous force in the physical sense.

Quantum Theory and Indeterminism

Quantum physics introduces phenomena such as radioactive decay and vacuum fluctuations, often described as probabilistic or even uncaused in classical terms. Critics argue that:

• These might undermine strong causal principles presupposed by the First Way.
• The idea that “whatever begins to change must have a cause” may be empirically challenged.

Proponents counter that:

• Quantum events still involve transitions from possible to actual states within a structured field of laws and conditions.
• The argument concerns metaphysical rather than empirical causation; it does not claim to predict or control specific quantum outcomes.

Cosmology and the Universe’s Origin

Modern cosmological models (e.g., Big Bang, inflation, cyclic or multiverse scenarios) raise questions about:

• Whether the universe had a temporal beginning.
• The nature of initial conditions and fundamental laws.

The First Way, focused on hierarchical dependence “here and now”, is often said by its defenders to be neutral on whether the universe is temporally finite or infinite. Some use cosmological findings as suggestive of a contingent, law‑governed order requiring explanation; others insist that physical cosmology cannot straightforwardly support or refute a metaphysical argument of this kind.

Methodological Debates

Engagement with science also raises methodological issues:

There is no consensus on which stance is correct; discussions often turn on broader views about the relationship between metaphysics and science.

13. Standard Objections and Critiques

Philosophers have raised a variety of objections to the Argument from Motion, targeting both its premises and its overall structure.

Misunderstanding of Motion and Physics

Some critics argue that Aquinas’s premise “whatever is in motion is moved by another” conflicts with modern physics:

• Inertia allows motion without continuous external movers.
• Quantum phenomena may lack deterministic efficient causes.

They conclude that the argument rests on an outdated physical theory. Thomistic replies typically distinguish metaphysical actualization from physical force, but skeptics question whether this distinction is coherent or empirically grounded.

Possibility of Infinite Regress

Another objection challenges the claim that an infinite regress of essentially ordered causes is impossible:

• Critics such as Paul Edwards and Graham Oppy contend that there is no logical contradiction in an infinite hierarchical series.
• They argue that explanation might be distributed across an infinite chain without a terminating first cause.

Some also question the essential/accidental series distinction, suggesting it is unclear or artificially drawn to support the desired conclusion.

Fallacy of Composition and “Why God?” Objection

Philosophers like Bertrand Russell and J. L. Mackie raise concerns about:

• Composition: From “each moved thing has a mover” it does not follow that “the whole collection has a single first mover.”
• Explanatory leap: Even if a first unmoved mover exists, why must it be a theistic God rather than a brute fact, an impersonal principle, or a basic law of nature?

These objections challenge the step from local causal claims to a global metaphysical conclusion.

Dependence on Controversial Metaphysics

Many objectors target the underlying Aristotelian–Thomistic metaphysics:

• They reject distinctions like act vs potency, or the idea that causal powers are inherently directed toward effects.
• Empiricist and Humean approaches treat causation as regularity or counterfactual dependence, making the First Way’s causal principles look question‑begging.

On this view, the argument has limited dialectical force for those who do not already accept the Thomistic framework.

Conceptual Coherence of Pure Act

Some critics query whether the notion of pure actuality is intelligible:

• Can there really be a being with no potentialities, yet capable of knowledge, will, and action?
• Is such a being compatible with personal attributes or responsiveness?

Others worry that pure act leads to a highly abstract, impersonal metaphysical principle rather than the God of religious practice.

These standard critiques form the backdrop for contemporary defenses and revisions of the First Way.

14. Contemporary Thomistic Defenses

Modern Thomists and sympathetic philosophers have developed sophisticated defenses of the Argument from Motion, responding to both scientific and philosophical critiques.

Clarifying “Motion” and Causation

Defenders emphasize that:

• “Motion” means any transition from potency to act, not merely spatial movement.
• The key causal claim concerns actualization of potentials, distinct from Newtonian forces.

They argue that this metaphysical account underlies our understanding of change across scientific theories, offering a framework within which physics operates rather than a competitor to it.

Essential Series and Derivative Powers

Contemporary Thomists refine the notion of essentially ordered series by:

• Framing it in terms of ontological dependence or grounding: later members have their causal powers only in virtue of a more fundamental source.
• Using examples from causal powers theory, where dispositions in things are said to depend on more basic structures or laws.

They maintain that an infinite regress of purely derivative entities would fail to explain why there is any causal efficacy at all, thus requiring a non‑derivative ground.

Modal and Metaphysical Recasts

Some authors translate the First Way into modal or analytic metaphysical language:

These formulations aim to engage contemporary debates on fundamentality, metaphysical explanation, and brute facts.

Defense of Act–Potency Metaphysics

Thomists also defend the act–potency scheme itself by arguing that:

• It captures pre‑theoretical intuitions about change and persistence.
• It avoids problems in rival metaphysical views, such as difficulties with explaining becoming in purely Humean frameworks.

They contend that if this general metaphysics is accepted, the First Way follows with considerable force.

From First Mover to Classical Theism

Recent work also revisits the move from unmoved mover to classical theistic God:

• Arguing that pure act naturally entails simplicity, immutability, eternity, etc.
• Addressing concerns about personality by arguing that intellect and will are not potentiae in God in the creaturely sense, but ways of describing the perfection of pure actuality.

While not resolving all criticisms, these defenses seek to show that the Argument from Motion remains a viable contender in contemporary philosophy of religion.

15. Comparison with Other Cosmological Arguments

The Argument from Motion is one member of the broader family of cosmological arguments, but it has distinctive features when compared with other major types.

Within Aquinas’s Five Ways

Aquinas himself presents several related arguments:

Some interpreters see the First and Second Ways as closely related; others distinguish them by noting that the First concerns the actualization of potentials broadly, while the Second emphasizes chains of efficient causes of being.

Kalam Cosmological Argument

The kalam cosmological argument, popular in contemporary analytic philosophy of religion, differs in several respects:

• Focuses on the beginning of the universe in time (“Whatever begins to exist has a cause”).
• Often uses scientific cosmology (Big Bang, entropy) as support.
• Aims to show the universe has a first temporal cause.

By contrast, the First Way:

• Is compatible with an eternal universe.
• Concerns hierarchical dependence “here and now”, not temporal origins.
• Relies on act–potency and essential series rather than on temporal finitude.

Leibnizian / Contingency Arguments

Leibnizian arguments from contingency reason from the existence of contingent beings or truths to a necessary being sufficient to explain them. Compared to these:

• The First Way is more specifically framed in terms of change and actualization rather than contingency per se.
• Some contemporary philosophers treat the First Way as a special case of a broader principle of sufficient reason approach, while others emphasize its more concrete starting point in motion.

Modal and Fine‑Tuning Arguments

Other theistic arguments—such as modal ontological arguments or fine‑tuning arguments—differ in both form and content:

• The First Way is a posteriori and metaphysical, not a priori or probabilistic.
• It does not appeal to detailed features of physical laws (fine‑tuning) but to the very existence of change.

Thus, while classified under “cosmological arguments,” the Argument from Motion has a distinctive Aristotelian–Thomistic character that sets it apart from many modern cosmological strategies.

16. Dialectical Role in Philosophy of Religion

Within contemporary philosophy of religion, the Argument from Motion plays several interrelated dialectical roles.

As a Paradigm of Classical Theism

The First Way exemplifies the classical theist approach:

• God is conceived as pure actuality, simple, and immutable, rather than as a being among others.
• The argument highlights metaphysical grounding and ultimate explanation, rather than probabilistic inference.

Debates over the First Way often reflect deeper disagreements about the plausibility of classical theism versus theistic personalism or naturalism.

As a Test Case for Metaphysics of Causation

The argument serves as a focal point for discussions about:

• The reality and nature of causal powers.
• The legitimacy of act/potency and essentially ordered series.
• The possibility or necessity of a fundamental level of reality.

Humean, neo‑Aristotelian, and interventionist accounts of causation all interact differently with the premises of the First Way, making it a useful test case for general theories of causation and explanation.

Engagement with Atheism and Agnosticism

In debates between theists and non‑theists, the Argument from Motion:

• Is sometimes invoked as a deductive alternative to more probabilistic or evidential arguments.
• Provides a platform for atheists to challenge the need for ultimate explanations beyond the physical world.
• Encourages agnostic positions that question whether human reason can legitimately reach beyond empirical reality to a pure act.

The argument thus functions both as an offensive tool for theism and as a target for critical scrutiny.

Educational and Historical Role

In teaching and scholarship, the First Way:

• Introduces students to medieval philosophy, Scholastic method, and Aristotelian metaphysics.
• Helps clarify the diversity of cosmological arguments, contrasting the Thomistic with kalam and Leibnizian forms.
• Serves as a historical bridge connecting ancient Greek metaphysics with medieval Christian theology and modern debates.

Because of this multifaceted role, discussions of the Argument from Motion contribute not only to the question of God’s existence but also to broader methodological and metaphysical issues in philosophy.

17. Influence on Theology and Metaphysics

The Argument from Motion has had a substantial and long‑lasting impact on both theological doctrines and metaphysical systems.

Shaping the Doctrine of God

In Christian theology, especially within Roman Catholic and broader scholastic traditions, the First Way supports and illuminates key doctrines:

These attributes inform classical accounts of Trinitarian theology, creation, and providence, even where the First Way itself is not explicitly cited.

Catholic Magisterial Reception

Several magisterial documents in the Catholic tradition acknowledge or presuppose Thomistic natural theology, including arguments resembling the First Way, though often in generalized form (e.g., affirming the knowability of God from created things). This has reinforced the argument’s place within:

• Seminary curricula
• Official Thomistic revivals (e.g., Leo XIII’s Aeterni Patris)

Influence on Metaphysical Thought

Beyond theology, the First Way helped shape key metaphysical ideas:

• It reinforced the centrality of act and potency, substance, and form in metaphysical systems.
• It inspired explorations of hierarchical causality and instrumental causation.

Even critics such as Kant and Hume were responding, in part, to cosmological arguments of which the First Way is a prime instance, influencing their own accounts of causation and the limits of speculative reason.

Neo‑Thomist and Analytic Metaphysics

The 19th–20th‑century Neo‑Thomist revival reinserted the First Way into conversations about being, existence, and participation. In contemporary analytic metaphysics, neo‑Aristotelian trends concerning:

• Causal powers,
• Metaphysical grounding, and
• Ontological dependence

often trace intellectual lineage, directly or indirectly, to the metaphysical scheme undergirding the Argument from Motion.

Interfaith and Comparative Impact

Analogous arguments from change to an ultimate unmoved principle appear in various Islamic and Jewish philosophical traditions, influenced by Aristotle and mediated by figures like Avicenna and Maimonides. Aquinas’s First Way thus participates in a broader Abrahamic discourse on God as the ultimate source of motion and being.

18. Legacy and Historical Significance

Historically, the Argument from Motion has functioned as one of the most influential and recognizable proofs for God’s existence in the Western intellectual tradition.

Medieval and Early Modern Status

In the medieval period:

• It became a standard part of scholastic curricula, commented on in universities across Europe.
• It shaped the way subsequent theologians and philosophers thought about natural theology and the possibility of rational demonstrations of God.

In the early modern era, the argument, often in modified forms, continued to influence discussions among rationalists and empiricists, even as new scientific paradigms emerged.

Enlightenment and Critique

During the Enlightenment, cosmological arguments, including variants of the First Way, became central targets for critics:

• David Hume raised doubts about necessary connection and causal reasoning.
• Immanuel Kant questioned the capacity of pure reason to establish existence claims about a necessary being.

These critiques contributed to a more skeptical attitude toward traditional metaphysical proofs but also ensured their continued discussion.

19th–20th‑Century Revival

The Neo‑Thomist movement re‑emphasized Aquinas’s arguments, including the First Way, as philosophically rigorous and compatible with modern scholarship. This period also saw:

• Extensive historical research into Aristotle’s and Aquinas’s texts.
• Renewed efforts to present the argument in a contemporary idiom.

Contemporary Significance

In present‑day philosophy:

• The Argument from Motion remains a standard item in textbooks, anthologies, and courses on philosophy of religion and medieval philosophy.
• It serves as a major touchstone in debates about classical vs non‑classical theism, metaphysical explanation, and the interface between science and metaphysics.

While its validity and soundness are actively disputed, its enduring role in shaping conceptions of God, causation, and the structure of reality secures its place as a historically central and philosophically significant argument.