A closer look at the first way

[Shike]

Shike: Your formulations of the first way are different, particularly in their validity.

Sure, I won’t argue. I just didn’t want you to ignore my post.

As far as the entity in the 1st ways conclusion being a counter example to my first premise, I take my first premise to be far better evidenced than some of the premises of the first way. I mean think about it, billions of examples confirming my first premise…that’s near certainty!

And any example you give will be a confirmation of Aquinas’ first premise, the reality of change.

The First Way is a metaphysical demonstration from the reality of change. Take any instance of change and you will be able to go through the same “motions” of the First Way. Thus the nature of the argument is not hypothetical with more or less evidence to back it up. It’s a demonstration in the strict sense. Demonstrations trump mere inductive reasoning.

That said, there doesn’t seem to be a necessary conflict between your inductive examples and the conclusion of the First Way. They could both be true.

Finally, I’m just working with the definitions of active and passive potency given by thomists like Clarke. In what way have I misunderstood these concepts?

I’m no expert, but it does seem like you are missing something, irregardless of what Thomists like Clarke say or don’t say. The First Way is very closely associated with the idea of dependency. I see no problem with the idea of a being in which everything else is existentially dependent on it but which it is not existentially dependent on anything outside itself.

In like manner, passive potency, or the reduction of potency to act by another, is not present in God just because He is Creator. I just don’t see the necessary link that says a being Who is Pure Act requires passive potency.

So I don’t think you quite get the active and passive potency distinction. Composition and dependency are necessarily integral to passive potency while it is not so for active potency.

Take care,
Michael

 

[JDaniel]

Here’s an argument for you guys:

Something’s potential to do X entails its potential to be an Xer.

e.g., If I have the potential to write, then I have the potential to be a writer. If I have the potential to swim, then I have the potential to be a swimmer. If I have the potential (active) to efficiently cause, I have the potential (passive) to be an efficient cause.

Perplexity:

Absolutely true . . . about you! That’s the point. We can’t go back through an infinity of “you’s.” You’s are finite. Thus, we have no choice but to accept that there must be an efficient causal agent that is not itself caused! This is a priori and inductive. (And, oddly enough, such an exigency must have been around prior to the beginning of our universe.) A foot print on an empty sandy beach might have been the product of ocean waves. But, how about two, or two hundred, or two billion, of them? Logic forces us to be rational and logical: there has to have been someone who made all of those foot prints. Any other rationale would be stupid.

It is by virtue of efficiently causing something that we acquire, or receive the status of ‘efficient cause’ - or not.

OK. (My addition)

All this spells doom for the Thomistic conception of [G]od though:

1. Everything that has an active potency has a passive potency.

This premise must be denied by pure logic alone. Everything that has existed, is existing, and will exist is in one or other of those states. But, these states cannot regress infinitely. That’s Aquinas’ argument. Refute it.

1. [G]od has an active potency.

We say that He has. But this is not the same “potency” that is spoken of when we speak of “potency” as “privation.” We have borrowed the word to emphasize that it is different than mere “privation.” If I am dead, I have the (mere) privation of life, but no potency to come back to life. Aquinas use of active potency is very specific:

“Active potency is the power to do something to something, and passive potency, [is] the power to receive something from something;” cf., e.g., On the Power of God, q. 1, a. 1.

1. But, [G]od does not have a passive potency.

This is now correct.

1. Therefore, [G]od does and does not have a passive potency.

Unjustified and unjustifiable assertion.

It seems theists would have to deny (4).

Actually, we deny 1 and 4. In fact, Logic, alone, denies 1. and 4. They are naked assertions, as pointed out by nearly everyone here, that are neither a priori nor a posteriori. They are neither inductive nor deductive. They are stand-alone, naked statements without any referentiality to any exterior exigency.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

Just a very simple argument will show why the first way argument utterly fails.

1 God is the creator of everything (Catholic dogma- Nicene Creed) - Correct.
2 There was an ontic instant at which only God existed (from 1) - Incorrect.
3 The universe is changing (common experience) - Correct (possibly).
4 God is eternally unchanging and unchangeable (Thomas of Aquino) - Correct.
5 Nothing can change itself (Thomas of Aquino) - Correct.
6 There was an ontic instant at which the whole of reality was eternally unchangeable (from 2,4 and 5) - (Possibly. - At that “ontic moment” on the fore-side of the beginning of the expansion of the dimensionless points within the singularity, and the aft-side of the active expansion of said points.)
7 Therefore everything is unchangeable - Incorrect.
8 conclusion: 7 contradicts 3, which shows the first way is necessarily wrong - Incorrect.

God bless,
jd-

 

[Perplexity]

Perplexity:

Absolutely true . . . about you! That’s the point. We can’t go back through an infinity of “you’s.” You’s are finite. Thus, we have no choice but to accept that there must be an efficient causal agent that is not itself caused! This is a priori and inductive. (And, oddly enough, such an exigency must have been around prior to the beginning of our universe.) A foot print on an empty sandy beach might have been the product of ocean waves. But, how about two, or two hundred, or two billion, of them? Logic forces us to be rational and logical: there has to have been someone who made all of those foot prints. Any other rationale would be stupid.

Speaking of naked assertions…

This premise must be denied by pure logic alone. Everything that has existed, is existing, and will exist is in one or other of those states. But, these states cannot regress infinitely. That’s Aquinas’ argument. Refute it.

You’ve identified Aquinas’ argument with logic itself, I don’t think I need to point out the problems with that do I? Except perhaps to note that you later conclude that logic alone refutes (1) and (4) when what you really mean is Aquinas’ argument disagrees with (1) and (4) lol.

We say that He has. But this is not the same “potency” that is spoken of when we speak of “potency” as “privation.” We have borrowed the word to emphasize that it is different than mere “privation.” If I am dead, I have the (mere) privation of life, but no potency to come back to life. Aquinas use of active potency is very specific:

“Active potency is the power to do something to something, and passive potency, [is] the power to receive something from something;” cf., e.g., On the Power of God, q. 1, a. 1.

This doesn’t oppose anything I’ve said, and sounds near identical to the definitions I provided elsewhere.

Unjustified and unjustifiable assertion.

This is a logical derivation Though, I don’t expect you to know what that means.

Actually, we deny 1 and 4. In fact, Logic, alone, denies 1. and 4. They are naked assertions, as pointed out by nearly everyone here, that are neither a priori nor a posteriori. They are neither inductive nor deductive. They are stand-alone, naked statements without any referentiality to any exterior exigency.

This is literally gibberish to me. That is, your use of these terms is inappropriate in this context betraying a misunderstanding of them. But, be that as it may, thanks for taking the time to respond.

 

[belorg]

1 God is the creator of everything (Catholic dogma- Nicene Creed) - Correct.
2 There was an ontic instant at which only God existed (from 1) - Incorrect.

2 is just another way of saying 1, so how can you deny 2 without denying 1?

3 The universe is changing (common experience) - Correct (possibly).

Well, if that is not corrcet, the First Way argument is utterly useless.

4 God is eternally unchanging and unchangeable (Thomas of Aquino) - Correct.
5 Nothing can change itself (Thomas of Aquino) - Correct.
6 There was an ontic instant at which the whole of reality was eternally unchangeable (from 2,4 and 5) - (Possibly. - At that “ontic moment” on the fore-side of the beginning of the expansion of the dimensionless points within the singularity, and the aft-side of the active expansion of said points.)
7 Therefore everything is unchangeable - Incorrect.
8 conclusion: 7 contradicts 3, which shows the first way is necessarily wrong - Incorrect.

I can understand you want 2 and 7 to be incorrect, but unless I see a serious argument for that assertion, my conclusion stands.

God bless,
jd-

Only if He has always been blessing, JD.

 

[JDaniel]

Mine was from dictionary.com. It doesn’t seem to disagree with yours either. Not sure what your issue is here, you seem to be in violent agreement with me.

Candide:

I’ll ask the same question: “Is English not your native language?”

Righto, well the purpose of language is primarily one of communication so the goal seems to have been achieved.

For everyone else, it appears, except you!

Well my question on this thread was essentially exactly that. Whether or not any of the other usual characteristics of God may be attached to the PM demonstrated by the first way (other than the appellation “God”) so far the answer is “No”.

“No!” ad infinitum. Thus I win!

Righto, so “whatever happened first” in plain English.

“No!” ad infinitum plus 1. Thus I win!

And of course we can answer them with “Magic” and “Fairies” and “timeless quantum foam” just as easily. But that doesn’t mean they ARE the answer.

Of course they aren’t. They lack gravitas. Plus they don’t have a world of four billion adult and nearly adult people that understand what they mean, as does the name “God.”

I listed some already, but as I’ve said let’s focus on “personal being” for now.

You’ve “listed” none. Now who’s trying to divert the conversation? You.

You agreed with me that someone can accept the conclusion of the first way (that “something happened first”) and be an atheist (not believe in any Gods) so clearly that means that the first way DOESN’T prove the existence of any god.

No it doesn’t. It merely means that some (perhaps 200 million) people have bought a line - and shall remain, at least for a while, ignorant.

Have you ever played snooker? Or pool? The white ball hits a red ball and stops moving, the red ball moves away. If you wish to show that the PM must necessarily be a sustaining mover then please go ahead. That would be an interesting read.

Now you’re mixing apples and oranges, and the bad part is, I don’t think you realize it!

Indeed, the big bang occurred, my question (once again) is whether we can logically assign a personal being as the cause of it. So far no progress on this front aside from repeated assertions.

Sure we can. We have, haven’t we?

True, it doesn’t add anything to PM. But I didn’t think anything needed to be added, I only added the clarification as you seemed to be struggling with it.

No, Candide, it’s either you, or it’s all of us (Chistians). “You” - or - “all of us.” Somehow, I just don’t think you’re that smart. (I don’t think very many authentic non-theists would agree with you either.)

My browser has an odd interaction with the text tool on this website, it seems to insert them at random. Please just ignore them.

OK.

Only if the selected word carries exactly the correct meaning and only that meaning. “God” meets neither of those criteria, at least not in common usage.

Are you sure you want to say that?

In fact yes, “something happened first” is an excellent plain English description carrying with it the virtues of both brevity and simplicity.

OK. Let me put it this way: it is an idiotic turn of phrase.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

Speaking of naked assertions…

Perplexed:

There are no “naked assertions” in my statements. And, neither of these are naked assertions either.

You’ve identified Aquinas’ argument with logic itself, I don’t think I need to point out the problems with that do I?

I seem to remember how miserably you failed in attempting to do so in many earlier threads!

Except perhaps to note that you later conclude that logic alone refutes (1) and (4) when what you really mean is Aquinas’ argument disagrees with (1) and (4) lol.

You are incorrect, and not clever.

This doesn’t oppose anything I’ve said, and sounds near identical to the definitions I provided elsewhere.

Interesting. “Near identical.” Hmm!

This is a logical derivation Though, I don’t expect you to know what that means.

Rather, I think it is you who does not know what that means. And this form of debate is non-productive - it is the tactic of scoundrels. And, that’s an implication, not an accusation.

This is literally gibberish to me.

I rest my case!

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

2 is just another way of saying 1, so how can you deny 2 without denying 1?

Belorg:

In our finite-ness, there is no way that we could know whether or not He’s been causing forever. So, your premise fails on that account - you simply can’t possibly know. But, we believe it is demonstrable.

Well, if that is not corrcet, the First Way argument is utterly useless.

Not at all. I have some ideas that I think are enhancements to the First Way. So, ideas that enhance the ideas of St. Thomas do not refute the First Way. Father Spitzer, in his book, New Proofs for the Existence of God, enhances St. Thomas too, yet does not refute him. (You do realize that such can be done, don’t you?)

I can understand you want 2 and 7 to be incorrect, but unless I see a serious argument for that assertion,

I have addressed 2. above. But, my conclusion on your # 7 stands.

Only if He has always been blessing, JD.

Thus, you can’t possibly know, therefore I can’t possibly know? Christians think that He has. Unfortunately, for you, we also believe that the Bible is about 2,000 years of (a lot of) people’s Biblical best practices, which helps us narrow it down just as Walter Reed narrowed down, via a similar dialectic, that Yellow Fever is transmitted by mosquitoes.

God bless, (recognize that I am sincere as I always type these words out instead of making them part of an automatic signature. )
jd

 

[belorg]

Belorg:

In our finite-ness, there is no way that we could know whether or not He’s been causing forever. So, your premise fails on that account - you simply can’t possibly know. But, we believe it is demonstrable.

Whether He has been causinf forever is not relevant here.
“There is an ontic instant at which only God existed” is another way of saying “God is the cerator of everything (lese besides God”
So, denying premise 2 is not your bets move, I’m afraid.

Not at all. I have some ideas that I think are enhancements to the First Way. So, ideas that enhance the ideas of St. Thomas do not refute the First Way. Father Spitzer, in his book, New Proofs for the Existence of God, enhances St. Thomas too, yet does not refute him. (You do realize that such can be done, don’t you?)

The First Way starts from change needing a unchanging changer. If there is no change, there is no need for an unchanging changer. That of course does not mean there cannot be one, but the argument is still uttrely useless.

I have addressed 2. above.

No, you haven’t.

But, my conclusion on your # 7 stands.

Since you haven’t addressed 2, you have no conclusion, for the time being all you have is a naked assertion.

Thus, you can’t possibly know, therefore I can’t possibly know? Christians think that He has. Unfortunately, for you, we also believe that the Bible is about 2,000 years of (a lot of) people’s Biblical best practices, which helps us narrow it down just as Walter Reed narrowed down, via a similar dialectic, that Yellow Fever is transmitted by mosquitoes

.

What has this got do do with anything I said. I said that God has always been blessing. That is a direct consequence of an unchanging God. So, yes, I can know this. If God is unchanging, everything He does, He has always been doing.That’s what it means to be unchanging.But if He is a creator of everything apart from Him, then it also follows that there is an ontic instant at which what He created wasn’t there, even though temporally it has always existed.

God bless, (recognize that I am sincere as I always type these words out instead of making them part of an automatic signature. )
jd

I am sure you are sincere, but if you truly believe in the First Way and Thomism in general, God blessing me or God not blessing me is an unchangeable fact. Nothing you or I do or say makes any sort of difference. God’s blessing, JD is nothing but … an automatic signature. Except, God cannot change it.

 

[Boojie]

Dear Perplexity,

Your major premise that to do an x, the doer must be an "x"er, is flawed when applied to a prime mover. The Be-ing, which we want to call the prime mover in the first way, is existence itself, (per se). He is who is. We know existence itself is uncaused and therefore infinite because no one or nothing can cause existence. Who can possibly cause existence? To be uncaused or unmoved is to be infinite, to be infinite, is to be perfect, to be perfect is to have no potentiality to be somewhere else or to be something else.

“Pure actuality”, “no potentiality” phrases do not necessarily mean, he cannot cause anything, they simply mean, Prime mover is a perfect being needing no potentialities at all, he has all the possible potentialities already as a pure act being. His being unmoved does not prevent him to be a mover. An unmoving box of chocolate candies on the shelf of a candy store causes me to move and buy that box of candy.
Being a pure act, does not mean it is impossible for the PM to have an effect at all. Why would it be impossible for a pure act being to have an effect? Why would he bother to exist at all if he would not have an effect or meaning whatsoever?

Besides, motion happens in the moved, not in the unmoved Prime Mover who is pure act.

 

[AndyT_81]

Hi Perplexity,

I’m still not 100% sure what you are trying to say, but ultimately I believe your objection is refuted by the first way itself (as JDaniel I think was saying). The key premise of your argument was:

a. Everything that has an active potency has a passive potency.

and you supported this by an inductive argument “The principle mentioned above seems overwhelmingly confirmed by experience.”. However, if the first way is successful we have the following:

1. There is certainly change in the world (reductions of potentiality to act)
2. The only way for this change to be possible is if there is a being of Pure Act which is devoid of all passive potentiality
3. This being of Pure Act MUST have active potency otherwise it would not be able to be the cause of change within the world

So if the first way is successful, (a) is false despite your inductive argument (and I gave reasons why your inductive argument doesn’t apply to the being of Pure Act, which you agreed with “of course this information is irrelevant to Pure Act”). Finally you say:

“if there is Pure Act, it has no active or passive potencies.”

As above, this statement misses the point of the first way - if there is to be change in the world, a being of Pure Act (no passive potency) must exist which ultimately causes that change (i.e. it has active potency). The first way does not arrive at an inert being of Pure Act, but a being of Pure Act which causes things.

 

[Perplexity]

I think the majority of responses to my counter-argument have done the same thing: Moorean shift my principle. If it’s true, the first way is unsound, if the first way is sound, the principle is false. Which position you choose depends on your background knowledge and other credences. So, if you’re more confident in the first way’s premises than my principle, the correct thing to do is to reject the principle. But, I maintain, as I think others would agree, that if you’re less confident in at least one premise of the first way than you are of this principle, the correct thing to do is to reject the first way.

The illustrate this, the first way concludes with a Pure Act that has(d) active potency. But, my principle entails that anything with active potency has passive potency. Since Pure Act cannot have passive potency, the principle precludes the existence of Pure act with active potency, but not the existence of Pure Act per se.

 

[JDaniel]

Whether He has been causinf forever is not relevant here.
“There is an ontic instant at which only God existed” is another way of saying “God is the cerator of everything (lese besides God”
So, denying premise 2 is not your bets move, I’m afraid.

Belorg:

This is just plain wrong. If God has been causing and creating “forever” there could never be an ontological moment when only God existed! Trying to say that this is wrong is not your best move, I’m afraid.

The First Way starts from change needing a unchanging changer. If there is no change, there is no need for an unchanging changer.

Not so. The first Way starts with the factical of “change/motion” from experience. We are merely affirming it.

Have you ever really read Aquinas’ first Way? I mean, really read it? You might try it; it’s quite short so a short attention span shouldn’t break one’s attention. (I suggest keeping a dictionary close by.)

Since you haven’t addressed 2, you have no conclusion, for the time being all you have is a naked assertion.

That’s all I’ve done is address # 2! You have got to be delusional.

What has this got do do with anything I said. I said that God has always been blessing. That is a direct consequence of an unchanging God. So, yes, I can know this. If God is unchanging, everything He does, He has always been doing.That’s what it means to be unchanging.But if He is a creator of everything apart from Him, then it also follows that there is an ontic instant at which what He created wasn’t there, even though temporally it has always existed.

Not so. In a previous thread we went through this - to my satisfaction. (You shoulda kept a dictionary nearby, belorg! )

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

I think the majority of responses to my counter-argument have done the same thing: Moorean shift my principle. If it’s true, the first way is unsound, if the first way is sound, the principle is false. Which position you choose depends on your background knowledge and other credences. So, if you’re more confident in the first way’s premises than my principle, the correct thing to do is to reject the principle. But, I maintain, as I think others would agree, that if you’re less confident in at least one premise of the first way than you are of this principle, the correct thing to do is to reject the first way.

The illustrate this, the first way concludes with a Pure Act that has(d) active potency. But, my principle entails that anything with active potency has passive potency. Since Pure Act cannot have passive potency, the principle precludes the existence of Pure act with active potency, but not the existence of Pure Act per se.

Perplexed:

Your absurd principle is hereby rejected, per se, as I see absolutely no reason why that which is pure actuality, i.e., existence, that happens to be a “creator” as well, must have “passive potency.” (Empther was prizewinningly right about you, I think.)

What is binding your mind to this absurd “principle” of yours? It seems you are attempting to use language in support of your case in a sort of Wittgensteinian attempt to show us those recognizably incipient skills.

God bless,
jd

 

[belorg]

Belorg:

This is just plain wrong. If God has been causing and creating “forever” there could never be an ontological moment when only God existed! Trying to say that this is wrong is not your best move, I’m afraid.

Sorry, but it’s obvious that you don’t understand what causing and creating something really mean. You keep conflating this with temporal notions.

Go and read some more stuff on this and we might one day continue this converstaion.

Not so. The first Way starts with the factical of “change/motion” from experience. We are merely affirming it.

I really thought you had some understading of philospshy, JD. By saying what you are sayng here, I am very much starting to doubt that.

Have you ever really read Aquinas’ first Way? I mean, really read it? You might try it; it’s quite short so a short attention span shouldn’t break one’s attention. (I suggest keeping a dictionary close by.)

I have read it more than once, JD.

That’s all I’ve done is address # 2! You have got to be delusional.

No, JD, you have been addressing a strawman.

Not so. In a previous thread we went through this - to my satisfaction. (You shoulda kept a dictionary nearby, belorg! )

God bless,
jd

In a previous thread you kept repeating your own shallow (mis)understadning of the issue. If that what you call satifying, I am afraid we have nothing morte to discuss. I would really love to discuss this with somebody who has more than a superficial understanding of these matters.

 

[Shike]

My argument does not assume anything about time.

To get it to work I think you do have to postulate a theory of absolute time. If you don’t like this you could always accept that your conclusion doesn’t follow from the premises.

6 There was an ontic instant at which the whole of reality was eternally unchangeable and unchanging (from 2,4 and 5)

If God is unchanging, everything He does, He has always been doing.That’s what it means to be unchanging.But if He is a creator of everything apart from Him, then it also follows that there is an ontic instant at which what He created wasn’t there, even though temporally it has always existed.

I think you’re confusing things a bit by mixing “ontic instant” in the same sentence as “temporally” and “always”. What could this “ontic instant” mean other than that everything depends on God for its existence? That God is the foundation of being. However, that said, an ontological hierarchy doesn’t say much about time, so I am perplexed at how you can link up an unchangeable and unchanging world as a necessary conclusion of such a being, if that being chose (chooses) to create at all.

The only way I can see your argument having any hope of working is if you postulate a theory of absolute time to get both God and creation under the same time-umbrella so you can transfer unchanging and unchangeable from God to creation. I think your argument does lend to this interpretation because it seems you have a habit of treating creation as a static entity that happened in the past instead of a present, ongoing reality. Such a conception thus jives with your equally dead and static conception of God (speculation, of course, your honor).

Maybe it could be better characterized that way, but that is just a semantic matter, and if you prefer you can add “unchanging”.

For your sake, don’t blow off what I said. Trust me, it’s very important in strengthening your argument. Otherwise there are holes the size of Gibraltar.

But the real question is: do you have any sort of substantive criticism of my argument?

I think you should focus more closely on Aquinas’ First Way and point out which premises are mistaken, ect. But we’ve probably been down this road before…

Take care,
Michael

 

[belorg]

To get it to work I think you do have to postulate a theory of absolute time. If you don’t like this you could always accept that your conclusion doesn’t follow from the premises.

I don’t need any theory of time in my argument. It’s not a matter of liking or disliking something.

I think you’re confusing things a bit by mixing “ontic instant” in the same sentence as “temporally” and “always”.

I am using ‘ontic instant’ because that word makes the contradiction in the first way more obvious.

What could this “ontic instant” mean other than that everything depends on God for its existence? That God is the foundation of being.

That’s exactly what it means.

However, that said, an ontological hierarchy doesn’t say much about time, so I am perplexed at how you can link up an unchangeable and unchanging world as a necessary conclusion of such a being, if that being chose (chooses) to create at all.

Of course iy does not say much about time, it does not say anything about time. Time (whether absolute or relative) is irrelevant for my argument.

The only way I can see your argument having any hope of working is if you postulate a theory of absolute time to get both God and creation under the same time-umbrella so you can transfer unchanging and unchangeable from God to creation. I think your argument does lend to this interpretation because it seems you have a habit of treating creation as a static entity that happened in the past instead of a present, ongoing reality. Such a conception thus jives with your equally dead and static conception of God (speculation, of course, your honor).

And completely wrong speculation. I am treating creation as creation, and whether it was in the psat, ongoing in the present or in the future does not matter one bit.

For your sake, don’t blow off what I said. Trust me, it’s very important in strengthening your argument. Otherwise there are holes the size of Gibraltar.

Since ‘unchangeable’ logically entails unchanging, there is no hole, but for clarity’s sake, I’ll add it.

I think you should focus more closely on Aquinas’ First Way and point out which premises are mistaken, ect. But we’ve probably been down this road before…

My argument, if sound, shows that the whole concept of Aquinas first way is logically contradictory. So if my argument succeeds, there is no first way anymore.
So, I am still waiting for a substantive objection of my argument.
Don’t worry too much, though, I have presented this argument on several occasions on several forums and asked several people for a refutation, but I’m still waiting.

Take care,
Michael

I always do, Michael

 

[TS_Aquinas]

I think the majority of responses to my counter-argument have done the same thing: Moorean shift my principle. If it’s true, the first way is unsound, if the first way is sound, the principle is false. Which position you choose depends on your background knowledge and other credences. So, if you’re more confident in the first way’s premises than my principle, the correct thing to do is to reject the principle. But, I maintain, as I think others would agree, that if you’re less confident in at least one premise of the first way than you are of this principle, the correct thing to do is to reject the first way.

The illustrate this, the first way concludes with a Pure Act that has(d) active potency. But, my principle entails that anything with active potency has passive potency. Since Pure Act cannot have passive potency, the principle precludes the existence of Pure act with active potency, but not the existence of Pure Act per se.

I see no reason why to deny your principle.

1. Anything with active potency has passive potency
2. A terminus is required in esstentially ordered series, ad infinitum is impossible.
3. A terminus agent of esstentially order series is pure act but falls under “anything” of premise 1
4. Pure act cannot be pure act with with passive potency and esstentially ordered series requires pure act

Conclusion: The terminus agent actualizes itself necessarily to be free of passive potency and be pure act to account for motion in esstentially order series and hold premise 1. A good demonstration of the Trinity might I add

 

[TS_Aquinas]

You can use whatever means you like. But you must (as with any philosophical discussion) support any assertions you make. Its worth noting that if you start to call upon others of Aquinas’s “ways” then you’ll also need to support that they refer to a single entity. In other words you’d need to support logically that the “greatest conceivable being” MUST be the Prime Mover, and not just assert that this is so. That is quite a prodigious challenge if you choose to follow that route, but as I said I’m happy for you to use whatever method to proceed that you prefer.*

Forgive me for merely quoting the Summa but just putting this up as a temporary reply until Sunday when I have more free time. Tell me what you think of this:

"that although in operations which pass to an external effect, the object of the operation, which is taken as the term, exists outside the operator; nevertheless in operations that remain in the operator, the object signified as the term of operation, resides in the operator; and accordingly as it is in the operator, the operation is actual. Hence the Philosopher says (De Anima iii) that “the sensible in act is sense in act, and the intelligible in act is intellect in act.” For the reason why we actually feel or know a thing is because our intellect or sense is actually informed by the sensible or intelligible species. And because of this only, it follows that sense or intellect is distinct from the sensible or intelligible object, since both are in potentiality.

Since therefore God has nothing in Him of potentiality, but is pure act, His intellect and its object are altogether the same; so that He neither is without the intelligible species, as is the case with our intellect when it understands potentially; nor does the intelligible species differ from the substance of the divine intellect, as it differs in our intellect when it understands actually; but the intelligible species itself is the divine intellect itself, and thus God understands Himself through Himself."

 

[AndyT_81]

Hi belorg,

Excuse my ignorance, but would you mind expanding what you mean by this “ontic instant” and premise 2 in general?

Thanks