Aristotle Case

First of all, reading this was hell. But anyways, it seems to me that this is what Aristotle was trying to explain: All movement is caused by some other movement or force. Everything that is capable of moving can move, but will not always move, and everything that is capable of moving also has the potential to be changed into something else. And if things are always being moved or changed by something else moving or changing, then there must be some force behind it all that is eternally moving. He then talks about how thought and desire move without being moved, but they cannot exist without the good or necessity, because one cannot have desires without first having thoughts and opinions which stem from necessity and "the good". Necessity (things that are necessary for being) appears in three different senses: that which oppose natural impulse, that which are needed for "the good", and that which cannot exist as something else. In example: the ability to hold back from hitting someone who made you upset, not littering, and combining an egg cell with a sperm cell to create a baby. All are necessary, but in different senses. And then he said that thought, desire and necessity cannot exist without life, which then creates an endless cycle. But because of what he said before, that all movement is caused by something else moving, this eternal cycle of movement must have been caused by something that is eternally the same. This eternal force, he says, is God, and God is "good".

So what I think Aristotle is basically trying to explain is that everything moves in a constant cycle of cause and effect, and the initial cause for the continuous cycle is God.