Consider the following passage:
The first and most manifest way is the argument from motion. Itis certain and evident to our senses that some things are inmotion. Whatever is in motion is moved by another.... For 'motion'means the reduction of something from a state of potentiality intoa state of actuality. But a thing can be reduced from a state ofpotentiality into a state of actuality only by something already ina state of actuality.... It is impossible for the same thing shouldbe simultaneously in a state of actuality and potentiality from thesame point of view, but only from different points of view....Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another,and that by another again. This cannot go on to infinity, becausethen there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no othermovers--since subsequent movers only move insofar as they are putin motion by the first mover.... Therefore it is necessary toarrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and thiseveryone understands to be God.
The following question has 2 parts:
Please formalize the argument presented in this passage.
Please present your one best criticism of the argument presented inthe passage
