Classical Theism, Philosophy, and Religion Forum / The argument from motion or first way.

**Posted by Noble_monkey** 6/03/2018 6:44 pm

Are there any good papers or doctoral theses about how one could go around defending that the prime mover is pure act? I do not like Feser's defence by using the essentially-ordered series of existence.

**Posted by RomanJoe** 6/03/2018 8:00 pm

Noble_monkey wrote:
Are there any good papers or doctoral theses about how one could go around defending that the prime mover is pure act? I do not like Feser's defence by using the essentially-ordered series of existence.

What do you think is lacking in Feser's presentation?

**Posted by Noble_monkey** 6/03/2018 8:55 pm

RomanJoe wrote:
Noble_monkey wrote:
Are there any good papers or doctoral theses about how one could go around defending that the prime mover is pure act? I do not like Feser's defence by using the essentially-ordered series of existence.
What do you think is lacking in Feser's presentation?

The Argument gets unconvincing from there for some reason.

But do you think there are any other ways to get from prime mover to pure act from there?

**Posted by RomanJoe** 6/03/2018 9:21 pm

Well do you accept PSR? Because if you accept PSR then I think you have good reason to believe that the prime mover couldn't be a composite of act and potency insofar as you would need an explanation for why it's actual to some degree and potential to another.

**Posted by Miguel** 6/03/2018 9:40 pm

What don't you like about Feser's argument?

By PPC the first cause has to have all perfections, since it is the cause of all things.

You could also check Joshua Rasmussen's work. He has some really good articles on cosmological arguments. And he defends a conclusion quite similar to "pure act" in his arguments for maximal greatness. Check "An Argument for Maximal Greatness" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_trdgsMdyQ (there is a link in the description for his paper). His basic argument is that the foundation of reality (i.e. the prime mover) can have no arbitrary, unexplained limits, so it must be maximally great, maximally powerful, etc. Otherwise there would be no explanation as to why the Foundation would have this specific limit, etc.

(And I think we can put this into act/potency terms, as of course a potency would be like a limit, there would be a question of why and how the prime mover would have unactualized potencies, why they wouldn't be actual, etc).

He's also currently writing a book on God's existence, so you could check it out when it comes out.

**Posted by RomanJoe** 6/03/2018 9:59 pm

Miguel wrote:
His basic argument is that the foundation of reality (i.e. the prime mover) can have no arbitrary, unexplained limits, so it must be maximally great, maximally powerful, etc. Otherwise there would be no explanation as to why the Foundation would have this specific limit, etc.

(And I think we can put this into act/potency terms, as of course a potency would be like a limit, there would be a question of why and how the prime mover would have unactualized potencies, why they wouldn't be actual, etc).

Yes, exactly. A composite being is limited insofar as it's actual yet limited by potentiality. A ball is actually on the table but is limited to that location precisely because it is in potential to every other location. And surely there's a causal explanation outside of the ball itself which explains why it is actual in one way (on the table) and potential in another way (any other location). We could look at a temporal cause (you placed it on the table) or a simultaneous cause (its mass and gravitational pull). If the prime mover was composed of act and potency we'd run into a similar scenario--why is it actual in one way but potential in another? A composite being always has an explanation for its composition.