Aquinas' First Way

On the Discovery Institute blog, Michael Egnor has posted what he considers proof of God. In fact, he says "the proof of God’s existence by natural science has a long and honorable pedigree."


His supposed proof is based on Aquinas' First Way, which he presents:

Evidence: Things change in nature.
Reason: Change is elevation of potency to act, and a thing cannot actuate its own potency because of the principle of non-contradiction. That which is changed must therefore be changed by another, and the Source of all change must be a First Mover Who is Pure Act.
Conclusion: The First Mover exists, and that is what all men call God.

Here’s a sketch of the theory of the Big Bang:

Evidence: There’s a red shift and we’ve found background microwave radiation.
Reason: Einstein’s equations of gravitation, when applied to these phenomena, point to a singularity at the beginning of the universe.
Conclusion: The Big Bang existed.

All scientific theories look like this. Exactly like this. We acquire physical evidence, reason in accordance with a logical or mathematical framework, and arrive at an existential conclusion.

God’s existence can be proven just like any scientific theory can be proven, or disproven.

How many ways is Egnor wrong?

1. The first point is that nothing is proven in science. Claims can be disproved. They can be well accepted and well supported. But not proven. Presumably Egnor is not that familiar with real science.

2. He claims "Change is elevation of potency to act". That is a rather odd way of looking at it! Why did the rock fall? Well it had the potential to fall because it was high up, and that potential was elevated to action. It is a fancy way of saying it could, and then it did. It does not actually add anything to the discussion aside from obscurity.

3. He claims "a thing cannot actuate its own potency because of the principle of non-contradiction". So if you have the potential to walk out the room, you cannot do so on your own apparently. The principle of non-contradiction states that two contradictory claims cannot both be true, but Egnor has neglected to say what these are; I can only imagine that is because he knows there is a massive hole in his argument.

We could also look at various quantum effects, and see that actually things do happen spontaneously in nature. Of course, Aquinias had no possible way to know that. Egnor, on the other hand, is just plain ignorant.

4. He claims "the Source of all change must be a First Mover Who is Pure Act." We have already established that change can be spontaneous, but even if it were not so, how does it follow that the first mover is "Pure Act"? He does not say - it is just a faith claim.

5. Egnor concludes "The First Mover exists, and that is what all men call God". But wait! Christianity claims God is eternal and unchanging, and yet here Egnor is claiming that quite the opposite, that God is the ever and always changing! Pure Act is the antithesis of an eternal and unchanging God.