How the Prime Mover Argument Works #AskAFriar (Aquinas 101)

Summary

In this episode of 'Big Questions, Little Answers,' Fr. Ambrose Little discusses the question of whether the universe has always existed. He explains Aristotle's concept of the eternity of motion and the need for a prime mover to initiate the chain of causes, clarifying common misconceptions. Fr. Little highlights that while Aristotle's Prime Mover argument proves a first cause, it does not necessarily imply a beginning of time. He introduces the concept of accidentally ordered causal series and suggests that proving a beginning of time requires a different argument. The episode concludes with a reflection on the nature of causality and God's role in sustaining the universe.

Takeaways

• 😀 Aristotle argued for the eternity of the world, meaning there is no beginning or end to motion and time.
• 😀 The viewer's misconception is clarified: Aristotle's Prime Mover argument does not necessarily prove a beginning of time.
• 😀 The Prime Mover argument demonstrates the necessity of a first cause but does not imply a first moment in time.
• 😀 A causal chain, like the links in a pocket watch, requires a first cause that initiates the motion without needing another cause.
• 😀 The type of causal series in Aristotle’s argument is essentially ordered, where the cause must continually exist for the effect to exist.
• 😀 In contrast, accidentally ordered causal series do not require constant activity from the cause to maintain the effect’s existence.
• 😀 The concept of the Prime Mover is about God’s direct and immediate causality in the universe, existing eternally.
• 😀 The Prime Mover argument proves the existence of a first cause, but the question of the universe's beginning in time needs another argument or revelation.
• 😀 A beginning in time can be understood within an accidentally ordered causal series, where effects can continue without the cause being actively involved.
• 😀 The script encourages further exploration of big questions, like the universe's beginning, which will be addressed in future episodes.

Q & A

What is the main point Fr. Ambrose Little is making with the swinging watch in the video?

Fr. Ambrose Little uses the swinging watch to illustrate the concept of causality. He wants to emphasize the importance of understanding what causes motion and to explore deeper philosophical questions about the nature of causes, especially in relation to the universe and the Prime Mover argument.

Did Aristotle believe in the eternity of the universe?

Yes, Aristotle argued for the eternity of the world, meaning that time and motion have no beginning or end. In his work 'Physics,' Aristotle asserts that motion and time have always existed and will always continue to exist.

What is the misconception about Aristotle's Prime Mover argument?

The common misconception is that the Prime Mover argument proves a beginning of time. However, Aristotle's Prime Mover argument doesn't necessarily imply a starting point in time. Instead, it suggests that there must be an uncaused cause that causes motion to exist eternally.

What is an essentially ordered causal series?

An essentially ordered causal series is a chain of causes where each cause depends on the preceding cause to continue its effect. This type of series requires the direct and constant activity of the cause for the effect to exist. For example, the motion of the watch depends on the prior cause, which in turn depends on another cause.

What is an accidentally ordered causal series?

An accidentally ordered causal series is a causal chain where the effects do not require the direct and constant activity of the cause to continue. Once the initial cause occurs, the effects can continue independently of it. A prime example is the beginning of time, which can exist after the initial cause without requiring constant intervention.

How does Fr. Ambrose Little clarify the relationship between the Prime Mover and the concept of time?

Fr. Ambrose Little clarifies that while the Prime Mover argument proves there must be a first cause that initiates motion, it does not necessarily imply the existence of a first moment in time. The Prime Mover can cause motion eternally, without a defined beginning or end.

What is the role of God in Aristotle's and Aquinas's Prime Mover argument?

In Aristotle's and Aquinas's Prime Mover argument, God is understood as the uncaused cause that initiates and sustains motion in the universe. While God does not need another cause to start His own motion, He is essential in causing the motion of everything else, continuously and directly.

What is the difference between a first cause and a first moment in time?

A first cause refers to the uncaused cause that sets everything else into motion, without requiring any prior explanation. A first moment in time, on the other hand, is a specific starting point in time. The Prime Mover argument shows that a first cause exists, but it does not necessitate a first moment in time.

Why does Fr. Ambrose Little say that the question of the universe having a beginning requires another argument?

Fr. Ambrose Little explains that while the Prime Mover argument establishes the need for a first cause, it does not provide conclusive evidence for the beginning of time. To answer the question of the universe's beginning in time, a different argument, or divine revelation, is necessary.

What is the significance of the term 'Big Questions, Little Answers' in the context of this series?

'Big Questions, Little Answers' reflects the aim of the series to address profound philosophical and theological questions. While the questions are large and complex, the answers offered are meant to provide clear, concise insights that help viewers engage with these ideas without overwhelming them.