>>17922087
>>17922129
>>17922164
The idea of the unmoved mover having a substance to begin with is silly, as it is the fundamental nature of existence, of being, thus it cannot have a substance because it is not separate from anything you could name, it is the ultimate reality. It also cannot have a will, as a will implies a desire for something, to seek something one does not have or for something that on a conventional level is separate from the self, but the unmoved mover has no will because it abides in everything thus contains everything - there is nothing for it to gain, to seek out, to desire. A person according to Aquinas is an individual substance of a rational nature. Jesus thus is two wills and two natures, divine and human, united in a single individual substance of a rational nature. But as we can see, there is nothing, nothing in the universe, with an independent and separate substance, if there were nothing would change and thus nothing could exist. Thus if Jesus is simultaenously the unmoved mover existing at all points as the fundamental nature of reality and by nature impossible to be acted on, and a human with a human will being acted upon... his existence is impossible, so would our existences be. The hypostatic union is special pleading. You cannot on one hand argue that God is an independent entity separate from all, that is he is the ultimate reality in which all things abide, and that he also became a being capable of being acted upon, changed, and that desires something thus lacks something.
As the second anon points out, dualism and the problem of interaction also applies, so if you try to make the unmoved mover its own separate state of being then you make it separate from the fundamental nature of the universe, thus incapable of action in the universe and therefore not the unmoved mover. Christians are anthropomorphising the impersonal nature of everything, and by doing so becoming ignorant.
(ran out of chars may be slightly incoherent)
