Thomas aquinas

I'm struggling to understand the first argument the unmoved mover, am brainlet so please help. Also has this argument been debunked at all and why?

Attached: St-thomas-aquinas.jpg (681x1020, 214K)

You fucked up by not starting with the greeks, particularly Aristotle

Start with his Compendium of Theology or somebody like Edward Feser and Brian Davies. I've never seen the argument be debunked. I have seen plenty of poor characterizations and understandings of the argument be debunked though.

>debunked
Your kind shouldn't be reading philosophy.

There's nothing wrong with the word.

I hate how Christians literally steal pre-christian arguments and use it for their own desert cult

That's a dumb thing to say. Nobody owns these arguments so they can't be stolen.

You're right

You will be really pissed off when you find out about pagans with monotheistic tendencies.

That's the whole point of Christianity.

if ur arguing with an atheist the first step is to prove the logical existence of a god, then the reason why your god is the god.

Is it really? The point of Christianity is to take pre-Christian arguments?

Every argument has been debunked
For all sides, in all fields

Pretty much every religion has used Aristotle's (and/or Plato's) arguments

Yeah but I think it's a little shitty to use those arguments for your own religion when that religion says the people who made the argument will burn for eternity

Sounds like an irrational opinion.

Uhhhhhhhhhhhh, that’s not in the Bible bud

Fuck this bald goblin and his gay ass lego house too!

Terms like "debunked" and "claims" (though that word has its appropriate usage) are not fitting for philosophy, or even science. Brainlet psuedojournalists and """skeptics""" tend to use them, especially in philosophy.
Anyone with a 101 level of philosophy education recognizes that arguments and philosophy can't be "debunked," that philosophical arguments are important to read for the sake of understanding, even if it's wrong or you disagree, and that philosophy is in the realm of logic, statements, and language, not credible claims.

I'm gonna try, because nobody else is:
>Everything that moves, is moved by something first, for example:
>Grass grows, because it is "moved" to by the sunlight
>Sunlight is "moved" by the chemical reactions that cause the sun to burn
>Planets are "moved" by gravity
>etc etc etc.
>Eventually, you get far back enough, like to the big bang for instance... well what moved that?
>If we go back far enough, something had to be the first thing to move.
>That thing is God

I believe Aquinas is arguing that God is existence itself (or even the Big Bang could be interpreted as God), not a le bearded cis white man in the sky, as redditors attempt to proclaim. Ok Yea Forums, tear me apart, call me a retarded faggot nigger, etc etc

>not a le bearded cis white man in the sky
Shhh. Every single theist literally believes in an physical man in the sky who watches us masturbate. No other conceptions of God have ever existed

>he doesn't know how close the Greeks/Egyptians/Israelite esoteric traditions really were
kek read a history book

Hardly.

>it's important to read wrong arguments because academic reasons
>philosophy deals in logic but not credible claims

Sounds to me like you just debunked yourself with all that buuuuuuuuuullshit *dabs while See You Again plays very loudly*

Why is God the unmoved mover? By the logic followed thus far, it seems very easy to assume that something would have moved God first. Isn't it arbitrary to get to that step, stop and proclaim "yep, this is the first one"?

Not Arbitrary. Aquinas asserts that the Prime Mover is God. Whatever that prime mover is. It seems like you are still thinking of God as some sort of entity. Aquinas is saying that God is just the first thing to move other things, and logically, their must have been a starting point. If something moved God, then God wouldn't be God, but the thing that moved him would be

>Regarding the unity of the divine essence, we must first believe that God exists. This is a truth clearly known by reason. We observe that all things that move are moved by other things, the lower by the higher. The elements are moved by heavenly bodies; and among the elements themselves, the stronger moves the weaker; and even among the heavenly bodies, the lower are set in motion by the higher. This process cannot be traced back into infinity. For everything that is moved by another is a sort of instrument of the first mover. Therefore, if a first mover is lacking, all things that move will be instruments. But if the series of movers and things moved is infinite, there can be no first mover. In such a case, these infinitely many movers and things moved will all be instruments. But even the unlearned perceive how ridiculous it is to suppose that instruments are moved, unless they are set in motion by some principal agent. This would be like fancying that, when a chest or a bed is being built, the saw or the hatchet performs its functions without the carpenter. Accordingly there must be a first mover that is above all the the rest; and this being we call God.

>But even the unlearned perceive how ridiculous it is to suppose that instruments are moved,
This is one of the things that Aquinas was wrong about. He underestimated the unlearned.

You're retarded, dude. There's nothing wrong with the word. There's nothing in the word that implies you're not considering arguments properly or taking them seriously. This is such a stupid thing to argue about.