(Are welcome the guidance and indications -emails, web
addresses, name of head of area publications, etc. - about publishing houses
and institutions that could publish the book).
Enunciation
The first and clearest way to demonstrate the
existence of God is based on the movement and is structured as follows:
1. It is evident, and it is verified by our
experience, that there are things which move, that is, they change.
2. Well, everything that moves or changes is moved by
another, since nothing moves but rather when is in potency with regard to that
for which it is moving. By contrast, move requires being in act, because move
is nothing else to do to pass some of the potency to act and this can not do
more than what it is in act.
3. But if what moves another is, in turn, moved, it is
necessary that be moved by a third, and to this one other. But we can not go on
indefinitely, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently,
there would be no any mover, as the intermediate movers move only by virtue of
motion they receive from the first. Therefore, it is necessary to reach a First
mover which is not moved by another.
4. This First mover which is not moved by another, and
that is the principle of movement of all the other beings is that we all know
by the name of God.
5. Therefore, God exists.
(The detailed explanation of each premise is in
the book. Likewise the answer to the main objections that have been made to
this argument. Here we will only present the answer to one of them)…
Objection 3: It is not necessary the First mover in the
light of modern science since this tells us about the 4 fundamental
interactions: gravitational, electromagnetic, strong nuclear and weak nuclear,
being that it is these (and not God) which put in motion and action to the
things of the universe (not to mention that, for be “forces” and not “beings”,
this also invalidate the assumption that "everything that is moving is
moved by another”). Therefore, the first way is invalid.
Response: False. The
four “fundamental forces” can not be the primary foundation of the movement and
action of things of the universe plain and simple because they do not exist by themselves! What? Yes, it is. In reality the
“forces” do not exist in themselves, they exist in the beings who act with this
or that force over other beings in the same way that colors do not exist in
themselves but rather in the colored things.
Perhaps we can better
understand this if we analyze the meaning of the word “interactions” that uses
the objection to refer to these forces. And is that the “interactions”,
regardless of how fundamental they are, can never be conceived as a “something”
existing in itself independent of the “beings” which interact. What really
exists are “beings” and not the “interaction” between them because this is just
a relationship that has no being-in-itself.
Moreover, with respect
to that which sustains the objection that, as it is “forces” and not “beings”,
it invalidates the assumption that “everything that is moving is moved by
another”, we must reply that the very notion of “fundamental forces” instead of
contradict this principle is an application of it. Take for example the
gravitational force. In physics, gravitation is defined as “the property of all
bodies to exert over each other attractive forces proportionally to its
gravitational mass”. Therefore, there is one attracted and other which
attracts. In other words, “one is moved by another”.
In conclusion, the
force is always the force from something which exerts a force. The motor is
the being which exerts the force, no the very force, the same way as the
speaker does not is the words spoken but rather the emitter. Then, the First mover
has to be a “Being”, not a “force”.
Thus is maintained conclusion of the first way.
