A closer look at the first way

[Shike]

You are the claimant, Shike.

It was only in response to your claim about the majority of philosophers. There are better ways to argue your point in a philosophy forum.

And the OP is about the 1st way. Let’s fully misunderstand that argument before we fully misunderstand the others.

 

[belorg]

It was only in response to your claim about the majority of philosophers. There are better ways to argue your point in a philosophy forum.

I did argue my point in ‘better’ ways in this thread. I only brought in ‘yhe majority of philosophers’ as a reaction to your claim that efficient and final causation gohand in hand. You stated this as a fact, while it is only one interpretation.

And the OP is about the 1st way. Let’s fully misunderstand that argument before we fully misunderstand the others.

If you claim that the 1st way argues sucessfully for a personal creator, you seem to be doing a good job at misunderstanding it.

 

[Candide_West]

No Scholastic Philosopher in the last hundred years that I know of has made that claim - as much as they would have liked to be able to. Thomas did say he was offering five proofs for God’s existence. Judging from the reaction up to the present time the result is mixed and I say that as one who thinks he did succeed. However, the qualities of a First Unmoved Mover, A First Effecient Cause, Himself Uncaused, A Necessarialy Existent Being Who Cannot Not Be, Who causes all possible beings to exist, A Selfsubsistent Existent Being, the Cause of the existence of all other beings, A Final Cause directing the end of every other being are some of the qualities Christianity would ascribe to its God, who is definitely a loving, personal God.

Perhaps it would help if i state the first way as I understand it and you tell me if I’ve got something wrong.

1. Every action we observe has a cause and an action cannot be its own cause.
2. There cannot be an infinite sequence of causes.
3. Therefore there must have been a first cause.
4. Everyone calls that “God”.

The point I have raised here is regarding 4. Essentially all this line in the logic does is re-name the first cause. It does not even attempt to tell us anything about the first cause, it just renames it as “God”. You could just as easily replace that last word with “fairies” or “a unicorn” or anything else you like.

As I said, for the sake of argument I’m happy to accept everything up to 3. Which is the existence of a prime mover (PM). The open challenge is to connect it with the other supposed properties of the Christian God - starting with “personal being”. If you can show that the PM must logically be a personal being, then you’re really onto something.

Don’t judge Thomas too harshly. Remember, he lived in an age of faith. When he thought he had demonstrated the existence of God, I’m sure he took it for granted that everyone would recognize that god as the God of Christianity, the God of his Faith, the God of the Bible - a personal God. In his day there were no agnostics or athiests in the civilized world. There were Catholics, Jews, and Muslims. That was it. I don’t know how important this point is to you but that is the best that philosophy can do.

Indeed, and I don’t judge him too harshly. He had a different mindset to those of us today so this particular failing in his argument probably wasn’t visible to him.

However, if you look at the universe around you, just taking it all in through your senses, just enjoying the beauty, the fantastic order and complexity, the amazing diversity of beings from zero ( so to speak) to a trillion and tens of trillions, the suitability of it all for the existence of humanity one feels compelled to believe in an all loving, personal God, the cause of it all. But then I am looking at it all as one who already believes. To me it seems impossible that some don’t, yet it is apparently true that some don’t, perhaps many.

Hmmm, I am constantly amazed by the spectacular beauty of nature. That I certainly share with you. But I’m not sure what you are trying to argue with regards to the suitability of it all for the existence of humanity. Clearly the vast VAST majority of the universe is utterly unsuitable for the existence of humanity. Not even one part per billion of our galaxy (itself one of billions) is suitable for human life.

Of course you could argue that earth is quite suitable for us, but that is not surprising given that we evolved here. Thus it would be more appropriate to say that we are well adapted to this environment (clearly the environment existed before we did and we adapted to suit it, not the other way around).

 

[Shike]

Perhaps it would help if i state the first way as I understand it and you tell me if I’ve got something wrong.

1. Every action we observe has a cause and an action cannot be its own cause.
2. There cannot be an infinite sequence of causes.
3. Therefore there must have been a first cause.
4. Everyone calls that “God”.

Thank you for a concise formulation of your current understanding of Aquinas’ 1st way. I think a lot can be learned from such a back and forth, Socratic, exchange. That said, I think your formulation resembles more the 2nd way than the 1st. I know that they are similar arguments, but they also have very important and precise differences. If I may throw another poster’s formulation into the ring,

Perplexity:

1’. Some things are in a process of change.
2’. Whatever is in a process of change is being changed by something else.
3’. An infinite regress of changers, each changed by another, is impossible.
4’. (Hence) There is a first cause of change, not itself in a process of change.

You’ll note that “and this being we call God” is absent from this piece of reasoning. If you look at the structure of the argument the conclusion that follows is 4’ and not 4. I don’t think Aquinas was that dull to miss which one was actually the immediate conclusion of his own premises. In sum, I think 4 is a summery statement that would only resonate with the philosophical milieu of the time and it is also a statement that is not to be taken out of the context of his entire works (especially the Summa Theologea which is a book for Theology students where he taught). People get so hung up about this line that they brush aside the argument; annoying, I know.

As I said, for the sake of argument I’m happy to accept everything up to 3. Which is the existence of a prime mover (PM). The open challenge is to connect it with the other supposed properties of the Christian God - starting with “personal being”. If you can show that the PM must logically be a personal being, then you’re really onto something.

Do you mean by “personal being” an intellectual being merely, or further, some being that loves us. The former has been presented many times and the literature is openly available–you’ll be able to find something on it no problem. The latter I would say is harder philosophically. I would say the latter is proved by virtue of the gift of existence and God’s omnipresence, although some would mention the agony of suffering that they go through (to which I would point to the Cross).

I encourage you to pursue your studies more seriously. If you indeed do think that the Prime Mover (Unchanged Changer) is established, then hold it so. Teach it to others. And contemplate the conclusions that would follow from such a being Who is Actus Puurus.

Of course you could argue that earth is quite suitable for us, but that is not surprising given that we evolved here. Thus it would be more appropriate to say that we are well adapted to this environment (clearly the environment existed before we did and we adapted to suit it, not the other way around).

Whether we evolved here or not. I never understood why existence is any less amazing or less surprising.

ciao,
Michael

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Absolutely, Aquinas made several inferences about the qualities of the Prime Mover or God that identify Him with the Abrahamic God.

[BTW, Aquinas famously holds that the Prime Mover did not necessarily *have to make the universe have a beginning, although he believes it does. He thinks that the Prime Mover continuously sustains things in existence, and He theoretically could have done this forever.]

newadvent.org/summa/1.htm

The One God

EXISTENCE: The existence (2) of God.
ESSENCE: We cannot know what God is, but only what He is not. So to study Him, we study what He has not – such as composition and motion. His simplicity (3) or lack of composition. His perfection: and because everything in so far as it is perfect is called good, we shall speak of His goodness (6) – and goodness in general (5) – as well as His perfection (4). His infinity (7) and omnipresence (8). His immutability (9), and His eternity (10) following on His immutability. His unity (11). How God is known by us (12). The names of God (13).
OPERATIONS (INTELLECT): God’s knowledge (14). The ideas (15), which exist in His knowledge. Truth (16) in God, for knowledge is of things that are true. Falsity (17) in God. The life of God (18), since to understand belongs to living beings.
OPERATIONS (WILL): God’s will (19). In our own wills we find both the passions (such as joy and love), and the habits of the moral virtues (such as justice and fortitude). Hence we shall first consider the love (20) of God, and secondly His justice and mercy (21).
OPERATIONS (INTELLECT AND WILL): Providence (22), in respect to all created things; for in the science of morals, after the moral virtues themselves, comes the consideration of prudence, to which providence belongs. Predestination (23) and the book of life (24).
POWER: The power of God (25), the principle of the divine operation as proceeding to the exterior effect. The divine beatitude (26)

It is very unfair to Aquinas if we say he simply didn’t address the qualities necessary in a Prime Mover.

You can disagree with his conclusions, of course. But he absolutely addressed the issue, and in great detail.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Perhaps it would help if i state the first way as I understand it and you tell me if I’ve got something wrong.

1. Every action we observe has a cause and an action cannot be its own cause.
2. There cannot be an infinite sequence of causes.
3. Therefore there must have been a first cause.
4. Everyone calls that “God”.

The point I have raised here is regarding 4. Essentially all this line in the logic does is re-name the first cause. It does not even attempt to tell us anything about the first cause, it just renames it as “God”. You could just as easily replace that last word with “fairies” or “a unicorn” or anything else you like.

As I said, for the sake of argument I’m happy to accept everything up to 3. Which is the existence of a prime mover (PM). The open challenge is to connect it with the other supposed properties of the Christian God - starting with “personal being”. If you can show that the PM must logically be a personal being, then you’re really onto something.

Indeed, and I don’t judge him too harshly. He had a different mindset to those of us today so this particular failing in his argument probably wasn’t visible to him.

Hmmm, I am constantly amazed by the spectacular beauty of nature. That I certainly share with you. But I’m not sure what you are trying to argue with regards to the suitability of it all for the existence of humanity. Clearly the vast VAST majority of the universe is utterly unsuitable for the existence of humanity. Not even one part per billion of our galaxy (itself one of billions) is suitable for human life.

Of course you could argue that earth is quite suitable for us, but that is not surprising given that we evolved here. Thus it would be more appropriate to say that we are well adapted to this environment (clearly the environment existed before we did and we adapted to suit it, not the other way around).

Fair enough. None of the Scholastic Philosophers I know attempt to follow up on that point ( i.e. the First Mover, etc is the personal Christian God). Either they say that Thomas did not succeed or they just assume he did and go on to enumerate the attributes of God using Thomas’ philosophy to explain these attributes. Of course, these philosophers are writing texts for Catholic students for the most part, they were not engaged in polemics. My personal interpretation of the problem is this. God has been constantly revealing himself through the universe, the " things " of this universe. He continues to do so to this day. Then he revealed himself to Abraham and Moses, then to the Prophets, and in the final days through his Son. At the same time he created man with and intellect and a free will and he expects man to use these tools to respond. If he hit us over the head with " proofs " we couldn’t deny, where would be the freedom, where would be the merit? When St Paul was preaching to the Greeks he got disgusted with them because they had " itching ears " and were just interested in a lively, intertaining discussion but weren’t about change anything on account of philosophical arguments. That is when St. Paul said, “…from now on I will preach Christ and Him cruxcified…” And he had a lot of success doing just that. Even St. Thomas stopped writing after he had a mystical experience while saying Mass one day, saying " …it was all straw…" He died a year later while crossing the mountains to a Church Council - probably from pneumonia or the flu. Anyway he had stopped writing.

I will try to think of a way to cross the bridge. But I doubt that I can do what others, more prepared, have failed to do. To me, it really does require a faith already existing. But I may be wrong.

 

[Candide_West]

Thank you for a concise formulation of your current understanding of Aquinas’ 1st way. I think a lot can be learned from such a back and forth, Socratic, exchange. That said, I think your formulation resembles more the 2nd way than the 1st. I know that they are similar arguments, but they also have very important and precise differences. If I may throw another poster’s formulation into the ring,*

Fair enough.

Originally Posted by Perplexity
1’. Some things are in a process of change.
2’. Whatever is in a process of change is being changed by something else.
3’. An infinite regress of changers, each changed by another, is impossible.
4’. (Hence) There is a first cause of change, not itself in a process of change.

Ok, no worries. Personally I don’t think that 4. Actually follows, but let’s ignore that for the minute.*

You’ll note that “and this being we call God” is absent from this piece of reasoning. If you look at the structure of the argument the conclusion that follows is 4’ and not 4. I don’t think Aquinas was that dull to miss which one was actually the immediate conclusion of his own premises. In sum, I think 4 is a summery statement that would only resonate with the philosophical milieu of the time and it is also a statement that is not to be taken out of the context of his entire works (especially the Summa Theologea which is a book for Theology students where he taught). People get so hung up about this line that they brush aside the argument; annoying, I know.

Fair enough.*

Do you mean by “personal being” an intellectual being merely, or further, some being that loves us. The former has been presented many times and the literature is openly available–you’ll be able to find something on it no problem. The latter I would say is harder philosophically. I would say the latter is proved by virtue of the gift of existence and God’s omnipresence, although some would mention the agony of suffering that they go through (to which I would point to the Cross).

Let’s go with the former. Perhaps you would be kind enough to present an argument which shows that the “first cause of change, not itself in a process of change.” reached above must be an intellectual being then that would definitely be ground gained.*

I encourage you to pursue your studies more seriously. If you indeed do think that the Prime Mover (Unchanged Changer) is established, then hold it so. Teach it to others. And contemplate the conclusions that would follow from such a being Who is Actus Puurus.

Well there in lies the snag, I’ve accepted the conclusion for the sake of our discussion, but even so I’m still nowhere near calling the unchanged changer a being.*

Whether we evolved here or not. I never understood why existence is any less amazing or less surprising.

Indeed, the comment was in response to a previous poster saying that the universe is well suited to our existence. This is akin to saying that it’s lucky that earths atmosphere happens to contain oxygen otherwise we’d all suffocate. Hence earth must have been designed for us. Of course the correct statement is that our species adapted to survive in an our atmosphere because it was the atmosphere of the planet we were evolving on.*

This certainly doesn’t make our existence any less amazing.*

 

[Candide_West]

My personal interpretation of the problem is this. God has been constantly revealing himself through the universe, the " things " of this universe. He continues to do so to this day. Then he revealed himself to Abraham and Moses, then to the Prophets, and in the final days through his Son. At the same time he created man with and intellect and a free will and he expects man to use these tools to respond. If he hit us over the head with " proofs " we couldn’t deny, where would be the freedom, where would be the merit?*

Interesting point, but I think I disagree. From christian beliefs it appears that god did indeed make beings who interacted directly with him and were this entirely certain he existed (Adam and Eve and the angels for a starter) if that is true then clearly God saw some merit in it. And since in christian beliefs on both occasions they exercised their free will and turned against him / broke his rules, we must conclude that they also had freedom (otherwise God must have made them do what he then punished them for which wouldn’t make for a great example of morality).

I will try to think of a way to cross the bridge. But I doubt that I can do what others, more prepared, have failed to do. To me, it really does require a faith already existing. But I may be wrong.

I think you’re probably right. As with many of these arguments they are convincing to those who believe anyway and not to those who don’t. As far as I can see this means that they fail as proofs.

 

[ivebeenshown]

Perhaps it would help if i state the first way as I understand it and you tell me if I’ve got something wrong.

1. Every action we observe has a cause and an action cannot be its own cause.
2. There cannot be an infinite sequence of causes.
3. Therefore there must have been a first cause.
4. Everyone calls that “God”.

The point I have raised here is regarding 4. Essentially all this line in the logic does is re-name the first cause. It does not even attempt to tell us anything about the first cause, it just renames it as “God”. You could just as easily replace that last word with “fairies” or “a unicorn” or anything else you like.

As I said, for the sake of argument I’m happy to accept everything up to 3. Which is the existence of a prime mover (PM). The open challenge is to connect it with the other supposed properties of the Christian God - starting with “personal being”. If you can show that the PM must logically be a personal being, then you’re really onto something.

You have no idea how thrilled I am to see this.

For your sake I will speak of God as ‘the prime mover’. Indeed, once the prime mover has been acknowledged, it is something entirely different to attribute other qualities to it, such as intelligence and personality.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Interesting point, but I think I disagree. From christian beliefs it appears that god did indeed make beings who interacted directly with him and were this entirely certain he existed (Adam and Eve and the angels for a starter) if that is true then clearly God saw some merit in it. And since in christian beliefs on both occasions they exercised their free will and turned against him / broke his rules, we must conclude that they also had freedom (otherwise God must have made them do what he then punished them for which wouldn’t make for a great example of morality).

I think you’re probably right. As with many of these arguments they are convincing to those who believe anyway and not to those who don’t. As far as I can see this means that they fail as proofs.

Yes, I forgot about Adam and Eve. After the fall however mankind soon forgot about God, yet his existence, power, etc were always seen through his creation. He always revealed himself that way but because man’s intellect and will were damaged by the fall, it was hard for them to " see " him. He then spoke to Noe, then Abraham, etc and finally through his Son.

The First Way
The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause. In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or only one. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.

---

As to the question whether the Prime Mover ( i.e. the UnMoved First Mover). Since he is unmoved himself, he has no potency, and having no potency, he is pure act. As seen above only an actually existing being can be in act. So the Unmoved Mover is an actually existing being which is pure act. His essence is his existence. Since he is now moving, as the First Mover, all the motions, changes, alterations of all beings in the universe, and has being so as long as the universe has existed ( eternal or finite makes no difference), this being is an intelligent being of infinite bounds and power. Since he is moving everything here and now, he is causing them to act as their First Efficient Cause, because to move is to cause. Since he is their First Cause, he also caused their existence and maintains them in existence. Since he moves and causes all that is and since we can only assume he acts for a purpose ( and it appears that all things act for a definite end) he directs all being toward their proper end.

This being, obviously supremely powerful and intelligent, greater than whom there can be no other, the creator, preserver, and director of all that exists, we can only conclude is personally interested in his creation, especially man. And since he created us, and preserves us in existence and given us such wonderful gifts he a " person " we owe a debt of praise and worship, indeed we can conclude that he expects that. We can futher conclude that since he gave us intelligence and a free will he expects us to make an effort worthy of intelligent beings to find out how he expects us to live, what he expects of us.
I think that is about as good as I can do without going into Revelation and Religion. But clearly, even on a natural level we have a real serious obligation. We can certainly assume he is not playing games and if we are playing games we can be sure we are not pleasing him. We must consider him as a Person, as an ’ I ’ and not a Person we can neglect or ignore.

 

[Candide_West]

You have no idea how thrilled I am to see this.

Happy to have helped.

For your sake I will speak of God as ‘the prime mover’.

Fair enough, I think the key point is that until we can establish that “God” and “the prime mover” are the same thing then we have no basis to use the terms interchangably.

Indeed, once the prime mover has been acknowledged, it is something entirely different to attribute other qualities to it, such as intelligence and personality.

Agreed.

 

[Candide_West]

Yes, I forgot about Adam and Eve. After the fall however mankind soon forgot about God, yet his existence, power, etc were always seen through his creation. He always revealed himself that way but because man’s intellect and will were damaged by the fall, it was hard for them to " see " him. He then spoke to Noe, then Abraham, etc and finally through his Son.

Yep, there are a number of other people who according to Christian beliefs had direct experience of God and presumably retained their free will.

The First Way
The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause. In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or only one. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.

Yep that’s a good translation of the first and second ways respectively. The issue I have raised related to the last statement of each “to which everyone gives the name of God” and “this everyone understands to be God”.

As to the question whether the Prime Mover ( i.e. the UnMoved First Mover). Since he is unmoved himself, he has no potency, and having no potency, he is pure act. As seen above only an actually existing being can be in act. So the Unmoved Mover is an actually existing being which is pure act. His essence is his existence. Since he is now moving, as the First Mover, all the motions, changes, alterations of all beings in the universe, and has being so as long as the universe has existed ( eternal or finite makes no difference), this being is an intelligent being of infinite bounds and power. Since he is moving everything here and now, he is causing them to act as their First Efficient Cause, because to move is to cause. Since he is their First Cause, he also caused their existence and maintains them in existence. Since he moves and causes all that is and since we can only assume he acts for a purpose ( and it appears that all things act for a definite end) he directs all being toward their proper end.

I understand those are your beliefs, at the moment though I have no reason to say that the first mover is a personal being so therefore no reason to assume purpose etc.

This being, obviously supremely powerful and intelligent, greater than whom there can be no other, the creator, preserver, and director of all that exists, we can only conclude is personally interested in his creation, especially man.

Out of interest is there a specific reason why you conclude that he especially interested in humans (other than your religious beliefs).

And since he created us, and preserves us in existence and given us such wonderful gifts he a " person " we owe a debt of praise and worship, indeed we can conclude that he expects that.

Again, not sure I can see any reason for that other than Christian religious beliefs. If that is what you are basing this statement on then fair enough.

We can futher conclude that since he gave us intelligence and a free will he expects us to make an effort worthy of intelligent beings to find out how he expects us to live, what he expects of us.

I think that is about as good as I can do without going into Revelation and Religion. But clearly, even on a natural level we have a real serious obligation. We can certainly assume he is not playing games and if we are playing games we can be sure we are not pleasing him. We must consider him as a Person, as an ’ I ’ and not a Person we can neglect or ignore.

Ok. Then thus far my objection stands. Thanks for writing.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Yep, there are a number of other people who according to Christian beliefs had direct experience of God and presumably retained their free will.

Yep that’s a good translation of the first and second ways respectively. The issue I have raised related to the last statement of each “to which everyone gives the name of God” and “this everyone understands to be God”.

I understand those are your beliefs, at the moment though I have no reason to say that the first mover is a personal being so therefore no reason to assume purpose etc.

Out of interest is there a specific reason why you conclude that he especially interested in humans (other than your religious beliefs).

Again, not sure I can see any reason for that other than Christian religious beliefs. If that is what you are basing this statement on then fair enough.

Ok. Then thus far my objection stands. Thanks for writing.

peterkreeft.com/topics/pascals-wager.htm

I’m sure you are familiar with Pascal’s Wager. You can look at it on the link. I’m aware that the " professionals " have been busy pulling it apart bit by bit.

One final thought. I had a very close, very intelligent friend who passed away almost two years ago who had a similar mind set to many I see these days, though I would class her as a professional skeptic rather than as an athiest. She had an incurable sickness and I managed to get her to the hospital as she was entering her final agony. It was hopeless. At any rate as she was laying there in ICU and the medicos were doing all those scary things the do, she grabbed my hand and told me to call Dennis, a childhood friend and Catholic priest. I did and he got there and gave he the Last Rites.

Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.

 

[Candide_West]

peterkreeft.com/topics/pascals-wager.htm

I’m sure you are familiar with Pascal’s Wager. You can look at it on the link. I’m aware that the " professionals " have been busy pulling it apart bit by bit.

Yes indeed, familiar enough. I certainly wouldn’t consider myself a “professional” at philosophy, but there are a number of significant problems with Pascals wager.

The most simple of which is that it is based only on consequence and not at all on probability. This means that it’s possible to construct any scenario our imaginations can invent and if the consequences are significant enough then we should act as if it is true even if we have absolutely no evidence to believe it is.

This is the same principle upon which chain emails are often built “if you don’t forward this message on something terrible will happen” or “if you do forward this on you’ll get a cheque for $45,368”.

Let’s put the imagination to work and imagine another scenario - someone may have hidden the winning ticket for this weeks lottery under a rock outside your house. If you go out there and check right now you’ll win the lottery and be a millionaire. The consequences if it isn’t there are minimal (you just wasted a few seconds of your time) the consequences if it is are amazing (you win the lottery). You have no evidence to suggest either that it is or is not there. So you should go out and check right?*

That is essentially what Pascals wager invites us to do. Act as though we believe X to be true even though there is no evidence to suggest it is.

Another problem is that pascals wager doesn’t consider all the possible outcomes. It only considers the Christian God or no god. At this stage there is no reason to eliminate any other possible god (Pascal said at this stage that the evidence for any god or no god is not compelling).

So when considering whether to behave as if the christian god exists or not we should also consider how any other possible gods might respond to such behaviour. Since there are an unknown number of different theoretically possible gods we cannot judge whether such behaviour would be favourable or not.

One final thought. I had a very close, very intelligent friend who passed away almost two years ago who had a similar mind set to many I see these days, though I would class her as a professional skeptic rather than as an athiest. She had an incurable sickness and I managed to get her to the hospital as she was entering her final agony. It was hopeless. At any rate as she was laying there in ICU and the medicos were doing all those scary things the do, she grabbed my hand and told me to call Dennis, a childhood friend and Catholic priest. I did and he got there and gave he the Last Rites.

Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.

Sorry for your loss. There are few things worse in our lives than witnessing someone we care deeply about suffering like that

 

[Shike]

Let’s go with the former. Perhaps you would be kind enough to present an argument which shows that the “first cause of change, not itself in a process of change.” reached above must be an intellectual being then that would definitely be ground gained.*

I will not present a formal argument (not ready) but I will present a general point that may help you see how a Scholastic might go about it.

In other words, how do we know that the being in the First Way is the same being in the Fifth Way?
Under an Aristotelian/Thomistic metaphysics efficient causality is something unintelligible when separated from final causality. Every efficient cause has a final cause; you can’t exercise a function that doesn’t have a capacity. Ergo, the efficient cause of all creation would also be the final cause of all creation.
Moreover, lest I be accused of affirming the consequent, the only way a being could be the final cause of all creation is if that being was not part of a genus. Hence such a being’s essence would be its existence… and that’s what we get with the Actus Puurus, the Unchanging Changer of the First Way.

There is a lot of good material out there. I forget, did you say that you’ve read Feser?

Well there in lies the snag, I’ve accepted the conclusion for the sake of our discussion, but even so I’m still nowhere near calling the unchanged changer a being.*

Well, for the sake of argument, I certainly wouldn’t call it a non-being as that’s just silly. From nothing, nothing comes.

I’m glad that your open to dialog! Thank you.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

If an UnMoved First Mover that moves everthing in the universe is granted we ( some Christians at least, including St.Thomas) call this God (i.e. the God of the Bible and of Christianity). Two questions have been raised: 1. Can this identity be made? 2. Is this UnMoved First Mover a " personal " entity ( God?) who could say of itself, " I " ? In other words, can it be identified as a " person " ? I have given an argument which demonstrates that the UnMoved First Mover is a personal being and that it can be identified as the God of Christianity.

From the Thomas’ exposition of the First Way he outlines what he means by movement. That is movement which is in any way progressing from a point of potentiality in respect of a certain perfection to a point of having acquired this perfection, which Thomas calls actuality. He shows that nothing can be moved from potentiality to actuality except by that which is itself an actuality. And ultimately we must conclude to an Unmoved First Mover. Now the UnMoved First Mover is an actuality since it is moving everything else and Thomas said nothing can move something else unless it itself is in act. For St. Thomas, to exist and to be in act is the same thing. For Saint Thomas anything which exists, is in act by that very fact and to act is " to be ." In his philosophy " to be " is the act of a " being. " A being is that which " is, " which exists. This includes a man, a tree, a dog, even that being Christians call God. So in Thomas’ philosophy only a " being " can be in act, can be an actuality, an actually existing something or thing.

But some people, when they get to the soul, or to God, or the UnMoved First Mover, the First Efficient Cause, the “… the being having of itself its own necessity…,” that to which all beings is the cause of their being ( i.e. existence) and every other perfection,"… some intelligent being by whom all natural things ( i.e. beings) are directed to their end…" they balk and say, " prove that is a being." They balk because if they admit that if any of these is accepted as a being and moreover a " personal " being, then they have lost a huge plank in their overall objection to the very idea that there could exist a real being outside this universe directing everything that goes on in it (i.e. something very close to what Christians call God). And this is the reason for the endless objections to whatever St. Thomas or any other Christian and even Jewish or Islamic philosopher has to say about the beginning and ordering and preserving, and preservation of all beings in this universe. By the rules of the game they are allowed on C.A. But one cannot but feel that they should offer something more than obfuscation and hectoring.

Here is my argument to show that the UnMoved First Mover is a personal being, and the being Christians can identify as their God. The UnMoved First Mover has no potency since it itself is UnMoved and because it is First in the order of movers and moves everything else from potency to act. Since it must itself be in act, since only that which is in act can move something else, it must be pure act.Since in has no potency or potentiality, it possesses its actuality perfectly. it is utterly simple having no composition because no potency. Since it is in actuality it is a being, and since it has no potency, it is pure actuality, and since to be in act is to be, to be pure actuality is to be supreme in being, or supreme in existence, and since supreme in existence it is supreme in every other perfection beginning with intelligence, will, goodness, beauty, power, etc. This is moreover seen in that it moves every other being.

Now to move is to be the efficient cause of an effect. Therefore the UnMoved First Mover is the efficient cause of everything that exists in the universe. To be the cause of everything else is to be the cause of their very existence and every other perfection. So according to St Thomas we have an UnMoved First Mover that not only moves every thing in the universe but causes them to be in their very being and every other perfection. And since no being acts without an end in view, by nature or by intention, the UnMoved First Mover directs all beings to their final end and thus motivates them to act, to be efficient causes in their proper order.

Now a being who does all that is not some inert rock!!! It is a supreme, perfect intellect, an intellect whose very essence is to exist. A really existing being. ( this is not my religion talking it is the philosophy of St. Thomas.). This really existing being must be a personal being because to suppose it wasn’t would be to suggest it acts without purpose. Moreover it created intelligent ( some times we may wonder about that) beings. Why??? Do you think it was just for kicks, just to play a giant hoax. It is pretty obvious that the universe we live in is ordered for our purpose, and even for the purposes of the lesser living beings. Why??? Science has proven that if at the beginning of the big-bang ( if indeed that reallly happened) if things had been just a smidgen different, we could never have evolved or existed, indeed no life could have. So it is pertty clear that The UnMoved First Mover, however you want to imagine it, takes a personal interest in our universe and especially in living beings and especially in human beings. To come to any other conclusion is not reasonable.

So the UnMoved First Mover is a being whose essence is to exist ( It is, or he is or if you like she is). And since it is obviously an intelligent being it can say " I am " or " I am a being." And given all it has done and continues to do, and since it has obviously ordered the universe for the benefit of mankind it is a " personal being " to mankind, it has taken a special interest in our welfare. Indeed, based strictly on philosophical grounds, without going into Revealed Religion, St Thomas and the Scholastics would say we owe such a being worship and praise and thanksgiving.

If you read the Philosophy of St Thomas and the Scholastics and the Neo-Scholastics you will see that this Being has all the other attributes Christianity ascribes to their God. Scholastic Philosophers arrive at these through a thorough philosophic reasoning process having nothing to do with religion or faith. Therefore St. Thomas was correct in identifying the UnMoved First Mover as God. And likewise the conclusion to each of the " proofs. "

I think I have shown to any reasonable mind that the Unmoved First Mover is a Being and a Personal Being as well, one that can say of itself " I " or " I am. " Of course this is only by the logic of the philosophy of St. Thomas. It can be rejected, but don’t say “… show me…” You have been shown, think about it. It takes years and years by the way. You have to plow through all of St. Thomas or at least the " Manualists " for starters.

Shall we have a vote? I would certainly welcome that. And one word to Believers just because there are people out there throwing dust in your eyes and are daily getting more and more aggressive remember you do not have to answer their objections because they are not after knowledge, they are part of a movement, whether they will admit it or not. It is the hip thing to do these days to sling mud at believers, their faith, their philosophers, their morality, etc. Their object is not to learn, it is to destroy. Stick to your faith and your philosophy. Right now they are pounding St Thomas because they realize just how correct and dangerous he was. Friend of my enemy is my enemy.
Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.

 

[Shike]

Linusthe2nd,

Thank you for your post. There is so much I agree with because I think it’s true; certainly most of it. I had no qualms at all for about 2/3rds of your post. It seems like you have read a lot of Aquinas and other Scholastics.

That said, please accept some constructive criticism. The main problem i see is this: that the way you bring science into the picture confuses the issue at best, or at worst, fails to give your argument the necessary nature that (I’m sure) it desires.

I won’t say that your argument isn’t persuasive. Depending on the person, I think your argument could help him reach some very important truths. But I do have to question the form of argumentation in a philosophy forum–the more professional won’t take the last part of your post very seriously due to its inclusion of a rhetorical question and use of “obvious”. Granted, it is open to question how professional we should be on this forum (especially in light of some of the ways certain visitors express themselves-not professional to say the least), but at the very least I hope my criticisms will be helpful to you… whether now or at a later date down the road, even in a different atmosphere.

Please let me briefly summarize your argument as I see it. I expect corrections for anything you think unfair. I took liberties because there were some things that needed to be fleshed out.
Summary 1 (S1):

1. If the Unmoved Mover lacked intellect, then the Unmoved Mover would always act without intentionality.
2. It’s obvious that the existence of living beings proves the Unmoved Mover acts with intentionality.
3. Therefore, the Unmoved Mover has intellect.

Support for premise 2:
1s. If the laws of physics were slightly different, then human beings would not exist.
2s. But humans do exist, and so only one extremely small subset of possibilities came to be.
3s. The best explanation for any extremely small probability coming to pass is the involvement of a being that has intentionality.
4s. Thus it is likely that a being with intentionality was involved in the creation of human beings.

• I think that the argument is valid, though not sound. By virtue of other people’s questions on the matter I can only assume that premise 2 is not true because it is not obvious to all or most. Perhaps you should drop the epistemic aspect (depending on your desired argumentation style and goals) and focus more on fleshing out the details of why the existence of human beings (or more generally living beings) prove that the Unmoved Mover acts with intentionality.
• There is something very fishy about the argument in support of premise 2. First off, it gives the uninitiated the appearance that this is another science versus religion debate–hence you have now opened the door to everyone and their mother who like to speculate on evolution (this comment is not directed towards Candide nor anyone specifically). And secondly, your argument appears to concede metaphysical ground and implies a sort of Palean Watchmaker Scenario by focusing on the macro order instead of Aristotelian Four Causes as some of the basic principles of any existing thing.
  Aquinas’ Fifth Way only requires some instance of final causality and does not require any example of final causality with intentionality. Moreover, it does not even require any example of final causality from living things (could one use these as examples? Absolutely! But they do not preserve the necessary nature of the argument). Aquinas’ Fifth Way is a demonstration in the true Scholastic sense of the word where your argument is only plausible, at best. It may be that you are trying to do something different and outside the box, but I fear it concedes too much at the gate. If you stick to the Four Causes and philosophy of nature, you’ll have something much more intellectually stronger.

If you read the Philosophy of St Thomas and the Scholastics and the Neo-Scholastics you will see that this Being has all the other attributes Christianity ascribes to their God. Scholastic Philosophers arrive at these through a thorough philosophic reasoning process having nothing to do with religion or faith.

Mostly correct. Though I don’t think the doctrine of the Trinity was ever philosophically proven and most definitely is an attribute Christianity ascribes to God. There may be others.

You have been shown, think about it. It takes years and years by the way. You have to plow through all of St. Thomas or at least the " Manualists " for starters.

If you want to become an expert or intermediate in the field, then I agree. But I don’t think the material is inaccessible to the novice, provided he is given the right help. There are many levels of detail and I think a lot could be tightly grasped at a more macro level.

Thank you for your time.

• Michael

 

[Candide_West]

I will not present a formal argument (not ready) but I will present a general point that may help you see how a Scholastic might go about it.

Ok, no worries. I’m not in a particular rush.

In other words, how do we know that the being in the First Way is the same being in the Fifth Way?

That would be a help yes.

Under an Aristotelian/Thomistic metaphysics efficient causality is something unintelligible when separated from final causality. Every efficient cause has a final cause; you can’t exercise a function that doesn’t have a capacity. Ergo, the efficient cause of all creation would also be the final cause of all creation.

The slight snag there is that accepting that assumption makes the entire argument tautological because you started out with the assumption that the universe had a purpose which of course must mean that there was an intention behind it.

If you’d like to use the argument that every efficient cause has a final cause then first you’d have to show that the universe as a whole has a purpose (or final cause) and of course you’ll need to show that that final purpose was intelligently concieved, otherwise the 5th way doesn’t help you at all. Unfortunately as far as I can see, in order to show that the universe has some intelligently conceived purpose behind it you’d first need to assign “personal being” to the cause of the universe. Which takes us right back to where we came from.

Moreover, lest I be accused of affirming the consequent, the only way a being could be the final cause of all creation is if that being was not part of a genus. Hence such a being’s essence would be its existence… and that’s what we get with the Actus Puurus, the Unchanging Changer of the First Way.

Right, so you’ve said that IF the prime mover shown by the first way is in fact a personal being then it is singular. This of course also stands on the assumption that a single thing was the cause of every other thing. As yet this is unsupported, there is nothing in Aquinas’s ways that eliminate the possibility of a number of timeless things or even a number of timeless beings existing ontologically prior to the universe.

There is a lot of good material out there. I forget, did you say that you’ve read Feser?

No I didn’t.

Well, for the sake of argument, I certainly wouldn’t call it a non-being as that’s just silly. From nothing, nothing comes.

Apologies I thought you were using the term “being” as in “personal being” or something that might call itself “I”. This was reinforced by the fact that you said “such a being Who is…”. Clearly calling the PM a “being” as in something which we might talk about having an identity is incorrect until we have established that it has “personal being”. If instead you were actually using the term “being” to refer to any thing in a state of existence (as implied by your reply above), then that’s fine.

I’m glad that your open to dialog! Thank you.

A pleasure, always interesting to have discussions on these topics. I’m glad to say I’ve had some very enjoyable discussions on this forum and this is shaping up to be another one.

 

[Shike]

Hey Candide West,

The slight snag there is that accepting that assumption makes the entire argument tautological because you started out with the assumption that the universe had a purpose which of course must mean that there was an intention behind it.

I do not assume such because final causality is not the same thing as purpose. I take “final causality” as synonymous with “teleology” and “purpose” as synonymous with “intentionality”. The relationship they hold is general to particular.

If you’d like to use the argument that every efficient cause has a final cause then first you’d have to show that the universe as a whole has a purpose (or final cause) and of course you’ll need to show that that final purpose was intelligently concieved, otherwise the 5th way doesn’t help you at all.

I do not need to show that the Universe as a whole has final causality or some particular thereof. I was showing the implication from the conclusion of the First Way, a sort of “convertibility of ultimate efficient to final causality” metaphorically speaking.

Right, so you’ve said that IF the prime mover shown by the first way is in fact a personal being then it is singular. This of course also stands on the assumption that a single thing was the cause of every other thing. As yet this is unsupported, there is nothing in Aquinas’s ways that eliminate the possibility of a number of timeless things or even a number of timeless beings existing ontologically prior to the universe.

Understood rightly, Aquinas’ arguments do conclude that such a being is wholly unique because they show the necessity of a being that is beyond genus. To go further in one particular line of thought, every composite (of certain philosophical principles as spelled out in Aristotelian Philosophy of Nature and Metaphysics) entity in principle can be defined in terms of genus and specific difference (and it’s not a mere convention of the mind). Aquinas’ Ways show a being that is philosophically singular in principle, non-composite, and so not subject to the categories of genus and specific difference.

The being must be described in an analogical way (read: not analogy; technical term) as One Who is wholly unique.

No I didn’t.

He has a great intro on Aquinas. It blows away a lot of the silly critiques that have passed for intellectual rigor in modern times (a bit), even contemporary (most of the book). But I would be chided if I didn’t say that the book also has positive content.
You can also get a feel for his writing and some of his arguments from his blog. Full name: Dr. Edward Feser.

Apologies I thought you were using the term “being” as in “personal being” or something that might call itself “I”.

Correct, I only meant being in terms of entity as pertinent to the discussion at hand, even though I did go conceptually beyond a mere being or entity. I try to be methodical but I fear it might be too difficult to not talk “anachronistically” once in a while and ignore the current place in the discussion, or perhaps even more limiting, the epistemological point of one of the members of the discussion (no slam, scout’s honor) – especially at the beginning of a discussion too!

A pleasure, always interesting to have discussions on these topics. I’m glad to say I’ve had some very enjoyable discussions on this forum and this is shaping up to be another one.

There are sometimes good discussions on these forums. I would be lying if I said that I haven’t learned very much.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Linusthe2nd,

Thank you for your post. There is so much I agree with because I think it’s true; certainly most of it. I had no qualms at all for about 2/3rds of your post. It seems like you have read a lot of Aquinas and other Scholastics.

That said, please accept some constructive criticism. The main problem i see is this: that the way you bring science into the picture confuses the issue at best, or at worst, fails to give your argument the necessary nature that (I’m sure) it desires.

Science has brought itself into the argument. And my observation is not essential.

I won’t say that your argument isn’t persuasive. Depending on the person, I think your argument could help him reach some very important truths. But I do have to question the form of argumentation in a philosophy forum–the more professional won’t take the last part of your post very seriously due to its inclusion of a rhetorical question and use of “obvious”. Granted, it is open to question how professional we should be on this forum (especially in light of some of the ways certain visitors express themselves-not professional to say the least), but at the very least I hope my criticisms will be helpful to you… whether now or at a later date down the road, even in a different atmosphere.

You can ignore " rhetorical " usage and " obvious. " Not essential except as a goad to the exercise of common sense and Thomas’ philosophy was based on common sense. It grew out of the observation of nature by the Greeks, then the Scholastics and lastly by himself as he reflected on their agruments.

Please let me briefly summarize your argument as I see it. I expect corrections for anything you think unfair. I took liberties because there were some things that needed to be fleshed out.

• I think that the argument is valid, though not sound. By virtue of other people’s questions on the matter I can only assume that premise 2 is not true because it is not obvious to all or most. Perhaps you should drop the epistemic aspect (depending on your desired argumentation style and goals) and focus more on fleshing out the details of why the existence of human beings (or more generally living beings) prove that the Unmoved Mover acts with intentionality.

All is fair in love and war, as they say. I think a reasonable person would see what I am trying to do and not object. I am appealing to common sense. If one does not have common sense nothing will avail.

• There is something very fishy about the argument in support of premise 2. First off, it gives the uninitiated the appearance that this is another science versus religion debate–hence you have now opened the door to everyone and their mother who like to speculate on evolution (this comment is not directed towards Candide nor anyone specifically). And secondly, your argument appears to concede metaphysical ground and implies a sort of Palean Watchmaker Scenario by focusing on the macro order instead of Aristotelian Four Causes as some of the basic principles of any existing thing.
  Aquinas’ Fifth Way only requires some instance of final causality and does not require any example of final causality with intentionality. Moreover, it does not even require any example of final causality from living things (could one use these as examples? Absolutely! But they do not preserve the necessary nature of the argument). Aquinas’ Fifth Way is a demonstration in the true Scholastic sense of the word where your argument is only plausible, at best. It may be that you are trying to do something different and outside the box, but I fear it concedes too much at the gate. If you stick to the Four Causes and philosophy of nature, you’ll have something much more intellectually stronger.

Thomas assumed the eternity of the universe for the sake of argument. Yes. you could ignore the Fifth way but the same result would obtain. Nevertheless, to ignore the Fith way would not mean that there is not observable order in the universe, from the Macro to the sub-atomic Nano universe. Thomas saw its value and importance, its necessity. Indeed there could be no efficient cause unless there was an end in view because there would be no reason to move or act.

Mostly correct. Though I don’t think the doctrine of the Trinity was ever philosophically proven and most definitely is an attribute Christianity ascribes to God. There may be others.

Oh yes. I was thinking of those attributes not dependent on Revealation. Certainly, the Trinity and Transubstantion would be excluded.

If you want to become an expert or intermediate in the field, then I agree. But I don’t think the material is inaccessible to the novice, provided he is given the right help. There are many levels of detail and I think a lot could be tightly grasped at a more macro level.

That is the present problem. The enemy is shaking the doors and is preying on the innocent and naive. Thomas would probably have been horrified to see his " proofs " banterd about as they are today. He lived in an age of faith and he was writing for clerics studying for the priesthood mostly and who were familiar with the philosophies of the Greeks and how they had been commented by other clerics. The arguments were never intended for the farmer, the butcher, and the candle stick maker. But these are the very people who are in the cross hairs today, the uniniated… Only those who have studied Thomas closely can really understand the true depth of his arguments. It is very easy to stand in the crowd and throw stones, to whisper idiotic nothings into the ears of the naive, the high school and college student who ,above all, wants to be accepted by his fellows, and respected by some idiot proffessor who is preaching inanities under the cloak of academia, a traditional seat of respectability. I don’t understand how to separate out your comments, not computer savy. Sorry.

Thank you for your time.

• Michael