Act and potential are essential in this regard. A motionless object has the potential to be moved by someone/something in motion. It can't be simultaneously in act and potentiality. An physical object is subject to corruption, hence is potentially corruptible. Can't leave out large bits of the first of the five ways and think that you have a grand break.
The unmoved mover is antecedent to the universe, Aristotle.

Thank you very much!!

Your son is not thinking in terms of the first principles of being or the concept of being. He should at least know you cannot get something from absolutely nothing, and that, in principle, is what you are doing when you get a greater effect from a lesser cause.

Warning: many people think that you can get something from "nothing," since they think of "nothing" as being a quantum vacuum because of their materialistic mindsets. But a quantum vacuum is merely the lowest possible energy state in a physical universe and is NOT what philosophers are talking about when we speak of "nothing." We mean "absolutely nothing at all."

But it really might help if you looked at some of my other articles, including the one or ones dealing with first principles, such a non-contradiction and sufficient reason.

I suggest you go over to my own web site at drbonnette.com , where you will find all my Strange Notions articles together in one place under the Strange Notions heading. There is a contact link there also.

If your son is at least still talking with you about these matters, that is good itself. Many young people come to the conclusion that they know more than their parents, since they think their teachers have taught them truths that their parents "just don't understand!"

that's backwards. It's because of the fuzzy edges, especially in biology, that I have to no reason to think the A/T account of natures/essences is correct, or even useful.

Would you be able to explain your comment "that's backwards"?

Would you say that different colors don't exist because we can't locate the exact moment when one color turns into another?

---

Another example would be, if there is no such thing as natures/forms, then there would be no good reason for why different arrangements of matter act differently. One may respond, "well, it's because they are arranged differently". But that begs the question. Why does differently arranged "stuff" behave differently?

Ultimately, we must get to the point where we say, it is because of the organizing and unifying principle that comes from within that entity, which in the A-T tradition is called "form" or a things "nature".

that's backwards. It's because of the fuzzy edges, especially in biology, that I have to no reason to think the A/T account of natures/essences is correct, or even useful.

You don't have any good evidence A-T metaphysics is true, that's your problem. Your ignorance to science and philosophy is not an argument for the "truth" of AT metaphysics. Now, that may sound harsh, but I'm just stating it bluntly. In our conversation you basically just stating you assume an AT-based view on causality, time, etc, before you deal with physical theories like SR (even though SR directly refutes your AT-based view on causality and time). This is the problem with virtually all Thomists. They assume a metaphysic that is incompatible with physics first, and then they deny the physics because it's incompatible with their assumed metaphysic.

As you say, one ought not start by assuming the truth of something, but come to believe what is most reasonable to believe based upon overall evidence and coherency. That is how I came to believe that A-T metaphysics is the most correct metaphysical view of reality.

Obviously, you disagree and that's okay. But I won't change my view without evidence that is better than the evidence I have for believing it to be true.

You're welcome, but it seems that it's been so long you've forgotten most of the pertinent details. You can't start your philosophizing with the assumption that Thomism is true. That has to be arrived at.

We will just have to agree to disagree :-)

As I mentioned before, metaphysics of time is one of my favorite topics as my undergrad thesis was on it, so it truly has been a pleasure!