St. Thomas Aquina's Five Responses

Aquina's five objections and responses have practically the same structure. The difference lies in the fact that in the last two ways, that of Aquinas, does not mention the impossibility of infinitely infinite series, although they are assumed.
Certain authors belonging to the Modern Age (epistemological paradigm) have questioned the conclusion about the existence of God undermining the premises of the five Thomistic demonstrations. You have seen how Hume's critique of the idea of causality renders the demonstration of the existence of God unfeasible; At most, the existence of God is reduced to the level of a mere belief emerged, not of experience, but of imagination.
For example, another objection consists of that presented by Kant. That of
Königsberg states that it is not possible to apply the pure concepts of the understanding, or categories (like that of causality), to the transcendental ideas of reason (as the idea of God). They undermined the five paths by resorting to what is commonly called "denying the major" (although such an expression may not be entirely accurate in this case).
The five demonstrations that Thomas Aquinas gives in the first part of the Summa Theologia continue to be debated even today. There are many who defend them, and not least those who reject them. Most philosophers argue that God is beyond the reach of our knowledge, which is empirical; Of everything that is beyond our reach is not worth discussing.
Now, Analytical Philosophy goes beyond this quasi-crude empiricism. Not all knowledge is reduced to the empirical. Beyond all this, the analytic school, along with its precursors, recognizes the existence of relations of ideas (Hume), truths of reason (Leibniz), or what comes to be the same, a priori analytical judgments (Kant). More than for cientifismo, Analytical Philosophy emphasizes by the analysis that realizes to the language by means of the formal logic. This is what we are going to do now, a formal analysis of one of Aquino's objections and answers.
"Everything that moves needs to be moved by another. But if what is moved by another moves, it needs to be moved by another "which in logical language we can transform into" For every object X there is another object Y such that if X moves M then X is first moved by C. The M Represents the fact of Moving, and C to be Cause of movement.
At no time do they say that everything moves, nor necessarily that every object endowed with movement has intermediate engines. What it is about (what Saint Thomas Aquinas intends to do) is to make a simple elimination of the conditional, or modus ponens of which I hope you will remember. Let us see together whether it is possible to perform such a simple basic rule of logical calculation, or whether it is not so easy to do what the Aquinant thought was so simple. But before performing such a simple operation, we must eliminate the problematic quantifiers that appear in the premises, with such elimination we verify that the statement is valid for any case chosen at random.
Explanation of the elimination of the generalizer: if the predicate move is valid for all X, it must be for any individual who moves. Explanation of the elimination of the particulariser: we know that an indeterminate individual is the first cause of "a", as I do not know what it is, I will assume a concrete one that I will call "b". We still do not know if "b" is God, since the demonstration has not yet ended. Explanation of the elimination of the particularizer: we know that an indeterminate individual moves, as I do not know what it is, I will assume a concrete one that I will call "a" to match the previous X and to continue with the elimination of the conditional or as He calls Aquino "modus ponens".
Why is it not permissible to do the modus ponens that St.
Thomas intends to do? There are three rules that we have to fulfill when eliminating any particularizer: 1ª the individual chosen to disengage from the particular quantizer should not appear in the expression to transform. 2nd, the individual chosen, cannot appear in the closing of this assumption. And 3rd, the individual that is chosen cannot be the same as that of another elimination of the particulariser that has not yet been closed.
Aquinas fails to comply with the second rule; Neither "a" or "b" cannot appear in a line and at the conclusion of the argument; That is, it is not lawful to conclude that "b" is the first engine of "a" and, therefore, much less add that to that "b", the first engine of "a", we call it God. With words instead of logical variables: According to logical laws the 1st answer should conclude that there are as many first movers immobile as objects moving, not one for all of them. The way should conclude with the existence of multiple gods, not of a God as Aquinas points out.
The only thing we can be sure of is that there is a first cause for every object that is in motion. Just as we can not determine that the object that moves X is the same each time, we can not determine that the causative object Y is always the same, and if we can not determine that it is always the same, we can not call it
God