Abstract

McNabb and DeVito have recently argued that Graham Oppy’s objections to the First Way are found wanting. Specifically, they argue that Oppy has mischaracterised the argument. McNabb and DeVito then restructure the First Way on behalf of St. Thomas. More recently, Joseph Schmid and Daniel Linford argue that the restructured argument given by McNabb and DeVito is problematic. For it is either valid but unmotivated or it is plainly invalid. In this paper, I argue that McNabb and DeVito’s schematic glossing of the First Way is both valid and motivated.