Debunking Aquinas: The First Cause Fallacy

Aquinas's Argument: Where It Goes Wrong

Arguments in "quote" blocks are the theistic arguments FOR the First Cause (also known as the Argument of the Unmoved Mover) argument.

Logically, an essentially ordered series of changes cannot be infinite. So there is some being that causes change but is itself unchanged. It is therefore eternal, immaterial, and the cause of all change.

This argument, a variation of the "First Way" from Thomas Aquinas's Five Ways, commits several fallacies:

• Unfounded Assumption: It assumes an "essentially ordered series of changes cannot be infinite." This is not demonstrably true. The universe may be cyclical, or have started with a quantum fluctuation, or have other origins we don't yet understand. There's no logical necessity for a "first cause."

• Equivocation: It shifts the meaning of "change." It starts by discussing changes within the universe (e.g., a ball moving, a tree growing). Then, it leaps to a "being that causes change" but is itself unchanged. These are different types of change. A being could initiate action without undergoing internal alteration.

• God of the Gaps: It fills a gap in our current understanding (the origin of the universe) with "God." This is a fallacy because as science progresses, those gaps shrink. It's an argument from ignorance.

• Special Pleading: It claims this "unchanged" being is exempt from the rules it applies to everything else (needing a cause). Why does the universe need a cause, but this being doesn't? This is inconsistent.

• Jumping to Conclusions: Even if we accept the premises, the conclusion is overstated. It describes this being as "eternal, immaterial, and the cause of all change." This doesn't necessarily equal the God of any specific religion. It could be a deistic force, a set of physical laws, etc.

In essence, this argument makes a lot of assumptions without sufficient evidence and uses those assumptions to reach a very specific conclusion that isn't logically warranted. It's a classic example of how philosophical arguments for God's existence often rely on leaps of faith rather than sound reasoning.

Engaging with the Counterarguments

Let's start with the first objection: the claim that an EO (Essentially Ordered) series cannot be infinite is an unfounded assumption. The universe could theoretically be eternal, but any EO series of change must be finite. A good example would be power strips. A power strip on its own can't power a lamp. It needs to receive power in order to give power. It's potency must be actualized. More power strips won't help, not even a hundred, not even infinite power strips. You need something with power but that doesn't receive power.

It's a good illustration of how energy transfer works within the universe, but it doesn't necessarily apply to the universe as a whole. Here's why:

Firstly, the 'First Cause' argument, even with this analogy, relies on assumptions we can't prove. It's right that an essentially ordered series of changes within the universe, like a chain of power strips, might need a starting point. But that doesn't automatically mean the universe itself requires a 'first cause' in the same way. We simply don't know if the universe 'needs to receive power' from something external.

Secondly, comparing the universe to a power strip is a false equivalence. A power strip is a designed object with a specific function within a larger system. The universe is vastly more complex, and we don't fully understand its fundamental nature or origins. Applying rules from a limited analogy to something as vast as the universe is a risky leap in logic.

Thirdly, even if we accept the analogy for the sake of argument, it doesn't automatically lead to the conclusion of a God. There could be other explanations for a 'source of power' for the universe, such as a multiverse, quantum fluctuations, or something we haven't even conceived of yet. Filling that gap in our knowledge with 'God' is an argument from ignorance, not a sound conclusion.

This brings me back to a crucial point: the burden of proof lies with the person making the claim. It's not enough to say 'there must be a first cause' and offer an analogy. We need evidence to support that claim, and the power strip example doesn't provide it.

As an atheist, I'm open to the possibility of a god or a creator if compelling evidence emerges. But philosophical arguments based on assumptions and analogies aren't convincing. Ultimately, the origin of the universe is a mystery. It's okay to say 'we don't know' rather than jump to conclusions based on limited understanding. Science continues to explore these questions, and I'm excited to see what we discover."

Our work is made possible by the support of readers like you. Become a sustaining member today and help us continue to provide insightful analysis and thought-provoking discussions. Every contribution makes a difference!