I made a hard thing to read really easy to read.

So I was thinking about Thomas Aquinas's argument from motion, as one does. I was looking at it thinking, "Man this stuff is hard as bleep to understand, why can't we just make it easy to read?"
Then I was like "Who the bleep is we I'm the only one here in my brain!?" and then I was like "Guess I'll do it."

Anyway so here is the original hard to read thing: CLICK HERE TO SEE IT.

Pull that up side by side with my better easy to read version. I'm pretty sure I nailed it. Let me know if I didn't and I'll fix it, but do note I'm making it EASY to read so if your objection would make it harder to read I will not care about it so there.

Let me know what else you think is way to hard to read and I'll make it easy to read. :)
~~~~


What its about: Aquinas argues that because something moves is moved by something else that moved, god exists.

I. Argument begins with seeing that things move in real life. Due to some stuff don't think that the conclusion (god) is certain, even though the whole thing is written that way.

A. If the argument is correct, it might be true because its like science, basically its just possible, so don't say the conclusion doesn't follow even if it doesn't because its not that sort of argument.

B. The concept of moving vs not moving is further complicated by more words and ideas in this argument.

C: Here is the argument:

1: We see stuff move with our eyeballs. Stuff that might move and stuff that does move. Thins are acted on. (Note you see this stuff with your eyes so its a special type of argument)

2: Things that are moved are moved by other things. The thing that might move only moves when it really does move. (Tree comes from tree seed)

3: Unless there is a god, then there is no movement.  When you take away the moving you take away the possible moving. (What came first the chicken or the egg?)

a: (Eating real toast for real makes you more awake, because the toast can do that. Real bread can become real toast. Real water, dirt and air can become grain. Taking away any of those things leads to no toast so the person eating it can't be more awake because there is no toast to eat, and for this example we ignore other things that could make you awake.)

b: (Aquinas isn't rejecting infinity going backwards even though he seems to be.)

4. God exists.

II. Some strawman objections to this argument:

A. Contradiction on number 2. God isn't moved but has the maybe move does that mean god can't move? Well no because see its about what could be or is, and if god isn't that thing then no and using special pleading about what god is like makes it avoid the objection.

B. There are problems with moving and sometimes moving. Why is it assumed that this have a start to all this? Why is it assumed to have a start, middle and end? Is that natural? Or maybe we just think this way? Why does the universe have to begin?

C. Simple idea: is it more reasonable to think that stuff that moves has always been that way then to think that all of it came from nothing? Newtons first law helps this objection somehow:

A thing that isn't moving will stay not moving, and a thing that is moving will stay moving unless it is stopped by something else.

D: Moving and not moving are both not the default state of the universe. Big bang theory and Big Rip theory are less possible then steady state theory and loop/Cyclical theory and pulsating universe theory.

E: Stuff can be explained without other stuff maybe. Something about Einstein's theory of relativity can be an objection to this argument.

More stuff to read:

Blah link one.
Blah link two.
Blah link three.
~~~~