A closer look at the first way

[davidv]

Of course there is no actual state of nothingness, that’s the whole point. There is only God and nothing else, which means God is the whole of reality.

This point is clearly in error.

I am not God, nor part of God
I am a part of the whole of reality
Therefore, God is no the whole of reality.

Maybe something about reality is unchanging, but it is impossible that the whole of reality is unchanging. And unchanging reality must be logically posterior to changing reality.

You may do so, but what’s the point if you do not even belive my argument is valid?

 

[belorg]

This point is clearly in error.

I am not God, nor part of God
I am a part of the whole of reality
Therefore, God is no the whole of reality.

I agree with that, David. God is not the whole of reality. My point is that the First Way, combined with Catholic dogma logically entails that God is the whole of reality, which seems obviously false and
therefore either Catholic dogma is wrong or the First way is wrong and most probably both are wrong.

 

[belorg]

You can take a Heraclitean position but that means you have to accept the conclusions that follow from it. If I am not mistaken Nietzsche’s work is a good example of the consequences.

Well, I do not completely agree with Heraclitus, but I take the position that reality is essentially unstable, for the simple reason that if reality were stable, no change would be possible. In fact this last sentence is my argument translated in very simple words.

 

[davidv]

I agree with that, David. God is not the whole of reality. My point is that the First Way, combined with Catholic dogma logically entails that God is the whole of reality, which seems obviously false and
therefore either Catholic dogma is wrong or the First way is wrong and most probably both are wrong.

I don’t follow this logic. In my view your attempt to show this have been adequately refuted.

What Catholic dogma(s) tell us, or even implies, that God is the whole of reality?

 

[belorg]

I don’t follow this logic. In my view your attempt to show this have been adequately refuted.

What Catholic dogma(s) tell us, or even implies, that God is the whole of reality?

You’ll have to reread my posts, David, because I really don’t feel like repeating myself over and over again.

 

[davidv]

You’ll have to reread my posts, David, because I really don’t feel like repeating myself over and over again.

Here was your initial post on the thread:

belorg:

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)
2 There was an ontic instant at which only God existed (from 1)
3 The universe is changing (common experience)
4 God is eternally unchanging and unchangeable (Thomas of Aquino)
5 Nothing can change itself (Thomas of Aquino)
6 There was an ontic instant at which the whole of reality was eternally unchangeable (from 2,4 and 5)
7 Therefore everything is unchangeable
8 conclusion: 7 contradicts 3, which shows the first way is necessarily wrong

Premise one is false, as God did not create himself. Therefore, the changes in the universe do not imply that God is changing.
The argument, even if valid (i won’t grant this because of the equating God with the universe), is unsound.

 

[Candide_West]

Here was your initial post on the thread:
Premise one is false, as God did not create himself. Therefore, the changes in the universe do not imply that God is changing.
The argument, even if valid (i won’t grant this because of the equating God with the universe), is unsound.

Belorg’s argument is not based on the idea of God creating himself, just of him being ontologically prior to everything else (note that this does NOT mean temporally prior since time is one of the things he presumably created).

Note he is also not equating God with the universe NOW but rather pointing out that ontologically prior to creation the only thing in existence was God. Therefore at that onotological point God was all of existence.

Belorg’s argument would appear to be entirely sound as far as I can determine at least.

 

[Shike]

Of course there is no actual state of nothingness, that’s the whole point. There is only God and nothing else, which means God is the whole of reality.

Candide West:

Note he is also not equating God with the universe NOW but rather pointing out that ontologically prior to creation the only thing in existence was God. Therefore at that onotological point God was all of existence.

Says who? From a timeless perspective (from an ontological perspective) God and creation exists. Again, the only thing that ontological analysis tells us in this case is that creation is dependent upon God–that is the only thing ontologically prior could mean. There is no state of nothingness, nor ontological nothingness when employing ontological analysis. The former you agree with, the latter you postulate. The latter doesn’t jive with the method… can you show me the detailed steps of ontological analysis of say, a tree?

You may do so, but what’s the point if you do not even belive my argument is valid?

Why are you here on a Catholic forum? I hope our reasons are similar.

I’ll get around to the continuation of my previous PL posts soon.

 

[Shike]

Note he is also not equating God with the universe NOW but rather pointing out that ontologically prior to creation the only thing in existence was God. Therefore at that onotological point God was all of existence.

This is what I keep hearing: ontological priority is not priority in time. Ontologically prior to creation was a point where God was all of existence. If you can’t cash out the previous sentence in terms of “is”, then you can’t cash out the meaning of ontological priority. Anything less is bringing time back into the equation, regardless of intent.

Belorg’s argument would appear to be entirely sound as far as I can determine at least.

Did you check my PL? If so, then could you please help me fill in the moves that shows that his argument is valid? At the moment, it is not. Also, his argument as stated is not meant to be sound as he wishes to pose a dilemma.

 

[Candide_West]

This is what I keep hearing: ontological priority is not priority in time. Ontologically prior to creation was a point where God was all of existence. If you can’t cash out the previous sentence in terms of “is”, then you can’t cash out the meaning of ontological priority. Anything less is bringing time back into the equation, regardless of intent.

Ok, linguistically it’s hard to express an ontological prior without implying a temporal prior (in common usage they are effectively identical). But I see no reason at present that you cannot have an ontological prior without being a temporal prior*(assuming you accept the possibility of timeless existence, which clearly you must if you agree with catholic dogma and Thomism).

In any case though, if we accept for the moment that you are correct and ontologically prior means temporally prior as well. That would mean that God cannot have created time.*

You can probably see that immediately but I’ll explain anyway. In order to have created time, God MUST have been ontologically prior to it. However clearly it is meaningless to say that God was temporally prior to time itself, there cannot have been a temporal period “before” time existed.*

So that leaves us with two options: either;

a). Ontologically prior can be independent of temporally prior (in which case your above objection fails).

b). God did not create time, which means time must have always existed (even ontologically and temporally prior to everything other than God himself). In other words there was an ontological and temporal point at which only God and time existed, since time is a measure of rate of change, and God was the only thing which could be changing at that point, God must have been changing. Which according to Thomism and Catholic dogma is incorrect.*

I can’t see any other options at least.*

Did you check my PL? If so, then could you please help me fill in the moves that shows that his argument is valid? At the moment, it is not.*

I’ve never been too good with those so I’ll just leave you and Belorg to it I think. I’m sure you’ll get there in the end if you’ve a mind to.*

My own objection to the first way is rather different anyway, essentially that even if we accept the argument (with the exception of the last line “hey let’s call it God”) then it tells us nothing meaningful about any deity. The challenge I have presented is getting from “there was one or more prime movers” (the conclusion of the first way) to “the prime mover should be considered to be a personal being”.To date I’ve not met anyone who can fill that gap using logical arguments.

I only stepped in on this discussion because DavidV seemed to have misunderstood Belorgs argument entirely.*

 

[Shike]

Thanks for the reply.

I won’t say too much about the meat of your post because I agree with most of it.

But there is a third option, which was the point of my last post. Namely, that someone is insisting that they are using ontologically prior in a timeless sense… when in reality they are not. I say this because in ontological analysis, there is both God and created reality. To say that there is a state of “ontological nothingness” and have it matter in the way belorg wishes it to matter, I think it would have to be a case of confusing the method with reality.

Within my last few posts I ask for an example of ontological analysis of any old object, in that case a tree. I don’t think many in this thread can deliver which is why I raise my eyebrow at its central use in the argument.

My own objection to the first way is rather different anyway, essentially that even if we accept the argument (with the exception of the last line “hey let’s call it God”) then it tells us nothing meaningful about any deity. The challenge I have presented is getting from “there was one or more prime movers” (the conclusion of the first way) to “the prime mover should be considered to be a personal being”.To date I’ve not met anyone who can fill that gap using logical arguments.

Yes, those are common objections. All I can say is that the answers are out there. There’s so much to say, I almost don’t know where to begin… that’s how deep the thinking and arguments and treatises go. Basically, you’d have to read at least the first 100 pages of the Summa Theologica to see some of what I am talking about.

I know it sounds lame, but it’s true nonetheless. Keep reading. If you haven’t read Edward Feser’s Aquinas, I highly recommend it. It will not answer all of your objections to the satisfaction that you probably want, but it will probably answer most of them, especially the ones that easily refute Aquinas’s Five Ways and which have been around as long as Aquinas (which is probably false; most of the objections are more recent in history).

 

[Shike]

1. God is the creator of everything (Catholic dogma- Nicene Creed)
2. God is ontologically prior to his creation
3. The universe is changing (common experience)
4. God is eternally unchanging and unchangeable (Thomas of Aquino)
5. (Onto)logically prior to changeable reality the whole of reality is eternally unchangeable (1, 2, 3, 4)

1. ∀x(Cxg & x≠g)
2. ∀y(Pgy & y≠g)
3. ∀x(Xx & x≠g)
4. Ig
5. ∀x∀y(Ix & Xy & Pxy & y≠g) from 1,2,3 and 4

Where:
Cxy = x is created by y
Pxy = x is ontologically prior to y
Xx = x is changing
Ix = x is eternally unchanging and unchangeable
g = God

Here’s a related argument that I’ve been thinking about (or belorg’s argument fleshed out a bit more).

Pantheism Argument Main

1. God is unchanging and unchangeable
2. God is the whole of reality
3. The whole of reality is unchanging and unchangeable

Given that the argument is valid, the conclusion in combination with the fact that there exist some things that change, means that we must deny premise 1, 2, or both 1 and 2.

• Deny premise 1 and you deny a major doctrine in Thomistic thought.
• Deny premise 2 and you seem to deny a major doctrine in Thomistic thought, according to a sub-argument as given by belorg.
• Deny premise 1 and 2 and you deny a major doctrine in Thomistic thought.

What is a Thomist to do? Well, look at the sub-arguments for premise 2.

**Pantheism **Argument Sub-1

1. God is the creator of everything (besides Himself)
2. A creator is ontologically prior to his creation if it’s the case that without the existence of the creator the creation would not exist.
3. God is ontologically prior to everything.

and…

Pantheism** Argument Sub-2**

1. God is ontologically prior to everything.
2. If x is ontologically prior to y, it means that y does not exist.
3. Everything (besides God) does not exist.

Now this is something I could put in PL if anyone is interested…

 

[belorg]

Thanks for the reply.

But there is a third option, which was the point of my last post. Namely, that someone is insisting that they are using ontologically prior in a timeless sense… when in reality they are not. I say this because in ontological analysis, there is both God and created reality. To say that there is a state of “ontological nothingness” and have it matter in the way belorg wishes it to matter, I think it would have to be a case of confusing the method with reality.

What you seem to be forgetting is that this state of ontological nothingness is a direct consequence of Catholic dogma which says that God created everything from nothing.
What you are basically claiming is that Catholic dogma is just kidding and that it does not really mean anything.
If that’s the case, there is nothing left to discuss.

Within my last few posts I ask for an example of ontological analysis of any old object, in that case a tree. I don’t think many in this thread can deliver which is why I raise my eyebrow at its central use in the argument.

We are not doing an ontological analysis here. We are starting from an ontological claim… That there was a state of nothingeness ontologically prior to everything (except God) is a given, not something we conclude after an analysis.

 

[belorg]

• Deny premise 1 and you deny a major doctrine in Thomistic thought.
• Deny premise 2 and you seem to deny a major doctrine in Thomistic thought, according to a sub-argument as given by belorg.
• Deny premise 1 and 2 and you deny a major doctrine in Thomistic thought.

What is a Thomist to do? Well, look at the sub-arguments for premise 2.
Pantheism Argument Sub-1

1. God is the creator of everything (besides Himself)
2. A creator is ontologically prior to his creation if it’s the case that without the existence of the creator the creation would not exist.
3. God is ontologically prior to everything.

and…

Pantheism Argument Sub-2

1. God is ontologically prior to everything.
2. If x is ontologically prior to y, it means that y does not exist.
3. Everything (besides God) does not exist.
   Now this is something I could put in PL if anyone is interested…

I am not sure I understand your premise 2. “y does not exist” does not follow from “x is ontologically prior to y”

 

[tonyrey]

What you seem to be forgetting is that this state of ontological nothingness is a direct consequence of Catholic dogma which says that God created everything from nothing.
What you are basically claiming is that Catholic dogma is just kidding and that it does not really mean anything.
If that’s the case, there is nothing left to discuss.

We are not doing an ontological analysis here. We are starting from an ontological claim… That there was a state of nothingeness ontologically prior to everything (except God) is a given, not something we conclude after an analysis.

The phrase ***creatio ex nihilo ***(creation out of nothing) was used to distinguish it from **creatio ex materia **(creation out of matter) which was a widespread belief in primitive societies.

There was no implication that “nothing exists” - as is evident from the Jewish recognition that God is “He Who Is” (which obviously excludes **all **other forms of existence).

 

[belorg]

The phrase ***creatio ex nihilo ***(creation out of nothing) was used to distinguish it from creatio ex materia (creation out of matter) which was a widespread belief in primitive societies.

There was no implication that “nothing exists” - as is evident from the Jewish recognition that God is “He Who Is” (which obviously excludes **all **other forms of existence).

Once again, Tony, thank you for making my point.

 

[tonyrey]

Once again, Tony, thank you for making my point.

At your service, belorg.

 

[Shike]

We are not doing an ontological analysis here. We are starting from an ontological claim… That there was a state of nothingeness ontologically prior to everything (except God) is a given, not something we conclude after an analysis.

A “state of nothingness ontologically prior to everything (except God)” is not the same as creation ex nihilo. Moreover, to even affirm such a statement is to misunderstand ontological analysis. That is why it would be beneficial for those using ontological analysis as an important part of any argument to actually be familiar with the method (I am not necessarily saying you aren’t familiar).

belorg:

I am not sure I understand your premise 2. “y does not exist” does not follow from “x is ontologically prior to y”

I agree. Now, what else could ontological priority mean? How would you change premise 2 here?

 

[belorg]

A “state of nothingness ontologically prior to everything (except God)” is not the same as creation ex nihilo.

No but ‘creatio ex nihilo’ entails the former

Moreover, to even affirm such a statement is to misunderstand ontological analysis. That is why it would be beneficial for those using ontological analysis as an important part of any argument to actually be familiar with the method (I am not necessarily saying you aren’t familiar).

It’s not ontological analysis, it’s an ontological claim.The cahtolic church claims that there is a state of nothingeness ontologically prior to the existence of, everything except God. Does that make sense? Most probably not, but that’s not my probelem.
Anyway, trying to redefine creatio ex nihilo to make it fit into the First Way is not going to work, so I amnot going to discuss this part of the argument anymore. We’ll have to agree to disagree here.

I agree. Now, what else could ontological priority mean? How would you change premise 2 here?

1. If x is ontologically prior to y, it means that if x does not exist, then y does not exist.but it does not mean that if y doezs not exist, x does not ecist.
   IOW there is an ontolological state of affairs at which x exiosts and y does not.

 

[TS_Aquinas]

It’s not ontological analysis, it’s an ontological claim.The cahtolic church claims that there is a state of nothingeness ontologically prior to the existence of, everything except God. Does that make sense? Most probably not, but that’s not my probelem.

That’s not the claim of the Church in any document or of any work by Aquinas, he even writes contrary to your observation,

“Again, in every making involving succession, a thing is in process of becoming prior to its actual production, as is shown in Physics VI [6]. But this cannot occur in creation. For the becoming which would precede the creature’s actual production would require a subject. The latter could not be the creature itself, of whose creation we are speaking, since, before being made, the creature is not. Nor would that subject lie in the maker, because to be moved is an act not of the mover, but of the thing moved. It therefore remains that some pre-existing matter of the thing produced would be the subject of the process of becoming. This is contrary to the idea of creation. It is therefore impossible that creation should involve succession.”

Read the Contra Gentiles closely, creatio ex nihilo was dealing with the ancient Greek position held by heretics of his day of eternally existing and uncreated prime matter. The dogma and the philosophy clearly defines that there is no mediation between God and creature in creation, no prior empty state of nothingness God worked with or even created Himself to create out of.