Key Moments
Is the First Cause Argument the Best Case for God? | Alex O'Connor (Part 7-8)
Closer To TruthWant to know something specific about what's covered?
We've already dissected every moment. Ask and we will deliver (with timestamps).
Key Moments
Aquinas' First Cause argument for God's existence doesn't require a universe with a beginning, but rather a cause that is fundamental, not temporal, and avoids an infinite regress of borrowed power.
Key Insights
The First Cause argument, as put forth by Aquinas, is distinct from arguments like the Kalam cosmological argument, as it does not necessitate a temporal beginning for the universe.
Aquinas distinguishes between 'accidentally ordered' causal series (like father-son, which can be infinite) and 'essentially ordered' series (like a table supporting a cup), where each member relies on the prior for its causal power.
An infinite 'essentially ordered' causal series is impossible because it would mean an infinite chain of entities borrowing causal power without any original source, which Aquinas argues must exist as a purely actual, non-material being.
The argument from 'motion' for Aquinas is fundamentally an argument from change, where potentiality must be actualized by something already actual, leading to a purely actualizer.
While the First Cause argument establishes a fundamental, uncaused cause, bridging to a personal God requires further steps, such as arguments from discretion (as seen in the Kalam argument) or historical evidence like the resurrection of Jesus.
Thomas Aquinas' own later religious experience led him to consider his extensive metaphysical work as 'straw' compared to divine ecstasy, suggesting the essence of religion might lie beyond natural theology.
Distinguishing causal chains: horizontal vs. hierarchical
Alex O'Connor argues that the most compelling philosophical argument for God's existence is Aquinas' First Cause argument, which is often misunderstood. Unlike arguments that rely on the universe having a beginning in time (like the Kalam cosmological argument), Aquinas' argument focuses on the nature of causation itself. He differentiates between two types of causal series: 'accidentally ordered' and 'essentially ordered.' An accidentally ordered series, like the father-son lineage, allows for an infinite regress because each member possesses its own independent causal power to perpetuate the chain. If a father dies, the son can still have his own son. This type of chain, according to Aquinas, could theoretically be infinite in time. However, he posits that a 'first cause' argument is fundamentally concerned with the latter type of series.
The impossibility of an infinite essentially ordered series
An 'essentially ordered' causal series, in contrast, is one where each member's causal power is not inherent but borrowed from the previous member in the chain. For example, a table leg supports the tabletop, but the leg's ability to support is dependent on the floor beneath it. If the leg is removed, it cannot independently support the tabletop. Aquinas argues that such a series cannot be infinite. If it were an infinite chain of entities, each borrowing causal power but possessing none intrinsically, then no causal power would exist in the chain at all. This is likened to an infinite series of people borrowing money without anyone ever possessing the initial sum; the money would never materialize. Therefore, there must be a foundational source of causal power that doesn't rely on anything else.
The unactualized actualizer: God as the ultimate cause
Aquinas' 'argument from motion,' which he also refers to as an argument from change, posits that anything with potentiality must be actualized by something already actual. For instance, a cold room (which has the potential to be cold) becomes actually cold when a colder source (like an open window letting in cold air) actualizes that potential. Similarly, an acorn (potentially a tree) becomes an actual tree through external forces. Aquinas argues that this process of potential being actualized by the actual cannot go on infinitely. There must be a primary being that is purely actual, possessing no potentiality itself. This 'unactualized actualizer' is what Aquinas identifies as God. This being is the ultimate source of all causal power and actualization in the universe. This being cannot be material, as matter inherently contains potentiality and is divisible, unlike a purely actual being.
From first cause to personal God: the inferential leap
While Aquinas' argument establishes a necessary, uncaused, purely actual first cause, bridging this concept to a personal God like the God of Abrahamic religions is a significant challenge. Arguments like William Lane Craig's Kalam cosmological argument attempt this by positing a timeless, spaceless, immaterial creator. The difficulty arises in explaining how a timeless cause can produce a temporal effect. If a cause is eternal and has the power to create, why would it create at a specific point in time? This seems to imply a choice or will, suggesting personhood. However, O'Connor notes that a timeless being doesn't experience 'points in time' in the human sense, making the concept of choice complex. The transition to a personal God often relies on further arguments, such as divine discretion, or appeals to historical evidence like the resurrection of Jesus, which itself requires significant inferential steps.
The nature of God and the puzzle of time
The relationship between God and time is a profound philosophical puzzle. For Aquinas, time is a measure of change. The question of whether God knows 'what time it is right now' highlights different theories of time (A-theory vs. B-theory). If time is merely a human perception or an infinitely thin barrier between past and future, then God, being outside of time, might not 'know' the time in a human sense. This doesn't necessarily mean God is timeless in the sense of infinite duration, but rather that time as we understand it does not apply. This complexity means that defining the attributes of the First Cause, especially its personhood, is not a straightforward extension of the initial argument and often depends on one's philosophical stance on time and consciousness.
The limits of natural theology and the role of experience
O'Connor acknowledges that a major criticism of these arguments is that they may prove a first cause but not necessarily 'God' as conventionally understood. He compares this to proving biological parentage before discussing the father's nationality. Even Aquinas, who believed the universe had a beginning due to scripture rather than philosophical proof, illustrates how faith and external beliefs can inform philosophical conclusions. Ultimately, O'Connor highlights Aquinas' own experience near the end of his life, where he deemed his extensive metaphysical writings 'straw' compared to a profound divine ecstasy. This experience suggests that while natural theology and metaphysical arguments are valuable tools for 'faith seeking understanding,' the essence of religious experience might lie beyond intellectual pursuit, in direct, ecstatic encounter.
Mentioned in This Episode
●Books
●Concepts
●People Referenced
Common Questions
Arguments for God's existence can be broadly categorized into those using reason alone (like ontological arguments), empirical arguments based on observations of the world (like fine-tuning or teleological arguments), and those that combine observations with reasoned principles (like cosmological or first-cause arguments).
Topics
Mentioned in this video
A major figure in Scholasticism, known for his arguments for God's existence, including the first cause argument and the argument from motion. He distinguished between accidentally and essentially ordered series.
Philosopher and apologist known for the Kalam cosmological argument, which posits that the universe had a beginning and thus a cause.
Author of 'The God Delusion', who is mentioned as criticizing the idea that a first cause must have the characteristics of God.
A physicist and theologian who discussed the relationship between God and time, holding a view of God as being 'in time' and 'everlasting to everlasting'.
A physicist and believer in Christianity who, unlike John Polkinghorne, believed God was 'outside of time'.
Philosopher and theologian who famously stated that people know what time is until they are asked to define it.
Philosopher known for his work on consciousness and the hard problem, who discussed his experiences with psychedelic drugs and their relation to reality.
More from Closer To Truth
View all 56 summaries
63 minWoodenfish Forum on Buddhism, Science & Future — Landscape of Consciousness — Robert Lawrence Kuhn
39 minCan Science Study the Nonphysical? | Jeffrey Mishlove
26 minThe Biggest AI Risks Ahead | Susan Schneider
29 minDoes Suffering Disprove God? | Alex O'Connor (Part 6-8)
Ask anything from this episode.
Save it, chat with it, and connect it to Claude or ChatGPT. Get cited answers from the actual content — and build your own knowledge base of every podcast and video you care about.
Get Started Free