A closer look at the first way

[Shike]

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

So, would you say that the part of your argument that relies on science is just one example of order that can be found on every observational level of reality, including some of the most fundamental principles like efficient and final causality?

To use the quotes you can press the button in the text editor that is next to the picture button, or you can manually insert them into your text by typing the following, without the *'s.

quote] insert text here /quote]

 

[Linusthe2nd]

So, would you say that the part of your argument that relies on science is just one example of order that can be found on every observational level of reality, including some of the most fundamental principles like efficient and final causality?

To use the quotes you can press the button in the text editor that is next to the picture button, or you can manually insert them into your text by typing the following, without the *'s.

quote] insert text here /quote]

I still don’t get the quote business. Anyway, my argument is metaphysical, not science based. Metaphysics is nothing but organized and clarified common sense. As Thomas said we see movement, efficient causality, order, end directed activity, ergo there is a Prime Mover, a First Cause, a Supreme Orderer, a Final Cause, all of which are identified as different aspects of the First Cause. These attributes are the same as those Christians recognize in their God, less those attributes known only through Revealation. Ergo, the First Cause is the same as the Christian God who is definitely a personal God. Nothing could be more clear. Of course no one has to accept it. However, this would be the position of St. Thomas if he had ever asked the question. He would have been stunned that people would have failed to make the connection. Of course he lived in the Age of Faith.

Thomas does indeed show how this Uncaused Source is a Being whose essence is simply " to be, " the utterly simple, simply " I am, " the eternal Intellect, the supreme Will the creator of all that is, He in whom we live, move, and have our being, who moves every act of all his creation, who directs and orders all acts to their final end, who maintains all in existence - here and now, to whom we owe worship and praise because he has created us and because he desires us as our:tiphat: end. Thomas goes into all this. You just have to read his works or at least some of the reliable manuals on Thomism.

 

[ReapReason]

Metaphysics is nothing but organized and clarified common sense.

I disagree. Metaphysics involves an epistemological certainty that cannot be provided by mere observation, and that is where it differs from Science. Don’t get me wrong, observation is a necessary part of it, but my understanding of metaphysics isn’t just pointing out the fact that we all perceive causality and then saying that everything has a cause. But rather Metaphysical knowledge begins with precise definitions and distinctions between being and nothing, form and substance, esse and essence, and then extrapolating from those distinctions and definitions the fact that everything that changes, or begins to have an essence, form, or being, has a cause.

Metaphysics is more than intuitive induction. It is certain knowledge.

 

[Candide_West]

Hey Linus,*

I’ll respond to this section of your post as its the bit which seems to be directed at me.*

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…

You’re ok up to here.

*and since supreme in existence it is supreme in every other perfection beginning with intelligence, will, goodness, beauty, power, etc.

This is where we starting hitting troubled waters. Because essentially above you’ve stated that “if X is pure actuality it must also be supreme in every property”. Now firstly this doesn’t actually follow from any argument I’ve heard thus far, and secondly it appears to cause some significant problems. For example it would mean that God is also supreme in smellyness, and hairiness, and evilness, and stupidity, and red-ness and green-ness, and inanimateness… Etc.

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.

Unfortunately in this part you are assuming the conclusion. This makes your argument tautological. In other words your argument amounts to - IF Aquinas’s conclusion is correct THEN the first mover is an intentional being which directs all others (which is Aquinas’s conclusion) hence this is circular.

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.*

Again, this is circular. IF the cause of the universe is a personal being THEN it is reasonable to believe that there is a purpose to the universe. But thus far we have not established that the cause of the universe is a personal being so we have no reason to judge that the universe must have a purpose because thus far no purpose has been detected.*

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.

Again thus far we have no reason to say that the first cause is a personal being. Therefore it’s difficult to assign any purposes to such a being. Also thus far there is no reason given to believe that the first cause has any interest in living things, and certainly no reason to believe that it is interested in humans in particular. Obviously given how utterly inhospitable the vast majority of the universe is to either humans or indeed any other living things, it would make little sense to suppose *it to have been designed for the express purpose of housing living things let alone humans specifically.

 

[Candide_West]

I disagree. Metaphysics involves an epistemological certainty that cannot be provided by mere observation, and that is where it differs from Science. Don’t get me wrong, observation is a necessary part of it, but my understanding of metaphysics isn’t just pointing out the fact that we all perceive causality and then saying that everything has a cause. But rather Metaphysical knowledge begins with precise definitions and distinctions between being and nothing, form and substance, esse and essence, and then extrapolating from those distinctions and definitions the fact that everything that changes, or begins to have an essence, form, or being, has a cause.

Metaphysics is more than intuitive induction. It is certain knowledge.

That said, it’s worth noting that we now know that some changes don’t have a cause ie quantum interactions. Some changes (like radioactive decay) are totally non-deterministic and spontaneous.

Relying on the “certain knowledge” that we gained from metaphysics would have left us unable to create devices like computers to have these conversations (at the scale which we manufacture transistors quantum effects are important). We would also not have laser eye correction, MRI scanners or many other wonders of modern technology.

 

[ReapReason]

That said, it’s worth noting that we now know that some changes don’t have a cause ie quantum interactions. Some changes (like radioactive decay) are totally non-deterministic and spontaneous.

Relying on the “certain knowledge” that we gained from metaphysics would have left us unable to create devices like computers to have these conversations (at the scale which we manufacture transistors quantum effects are important). We would also not have laser eye correction, MRI scanners or many other wonders of modern technology.

There are different kinds of causality that metaphysics takes into account. While the scientific method allows us to describe quantum events as not having a mechanistic billiard ball type of physical cause, science does not and cannot by definition of its own epistemological context provide further evidence that quantum objects sustain their own being in existence and is the cause of its own motion, form or essence.

When a scientist says that quantum interactions don’t have a cause, they mean they don’t have a physical cause in the classical sense of the word. They say no more than that. They are not making a metaphysical claim about causality in general.

You do not understand metaphysics so please don’t pretend that you do. On top of that you seem to have a habit of judging other forms of knowledge according to the limited epistemological context of the scientific method, and yet you make absolute unfounded metaphysical claims at the same time which have nothing to do with what scientists have actually said. In other words you are taking the scientific sense of causality and applying it universally without justification.

Scientists are saying it does not have a physical cause in the classical sense of the word. They are not by that judgement saying it does not have any cause at all, and neither do they have the epistemological authority to do so.

Therefore if you are going to say that quantum effects have no kind of cause whatsoever, then you are going to have to come up with you own metaphysical defence as to why you think that to be the case. Science cannot help you. Otherwise, you are just making circular arguments based on ill-founded ideas about how science works as a principle of knowledge.

 

[ReapReason]

Metaphysics deals with being as being. It speaks of causality only in so far as a things “existence” is concerned. Metaphysics does not speculate about particular kinds of effects that particular natures have. Thus it is irreverent that a thing has a particular kind of motion or behaviour without having direct interaction with another thing. Metaphysics deals with reality in general and does not conflict with the scientific context in which it scientists speak of causes.

 

[JDaniel]

All:

Here is the position of the Catholic Church:

"To be mutable is proper to composite beings within an interdependent system. The elements and orders of being in the universe exist for each other, and the capacity to change is a condition of their inter-action. No chemical element or living species has any reason or capacity for existence except as part of a reciprocal system culminating in rational being. Material things do not possess independent spontaneous activity, motion, or life. In order that they may be active it is necessary that they should be influenced by other things. As truly as color depends upon light, so truly do all properties of matter involve interaction. Animal dependence upon the vegetable kingdom is still more obvious. Also our own mental as well as bodily dependence upon other things is with us an abiding consciousness.

“Finite activity, life, and development thus demand interaction of diverse entities. Movement can only take place when one thing is influenced by another either directly or indirectly. Without interaction there can be no change. To receive impressions from other things is of the very meaning of change or development. Mutual influence and interaction, moreover, necessitate heterogeneity. Things must be of different kinds in order to produce that modifying influence upon one another which is requisite for development, life, movement, or change of any kind. The energy of chemical elements is only potential if considered apart from that interaction with other elements which is necessary for complete activity.” - The Teaching of the Catholic Church, Vol I, pp 95-96, 1962. (Highlighted parts, mine.)
It is the contention of the Church that all motion, therefore, presupposes and requires other entities which affect the moved into moving. God exists as an infinite-by-himself-only, how then can he be subject to any sequence of motion, and really, also time? He cannot, is not, and was not.

I view God’s “creative” activity to be likened to an instantaneous procession of thought. That shouldn’t be too hard for an infinite and omniscient being. Although, it is hard for finite beings to understand. Thus, really, there is no ontological reality where there is a time (no matter how you slice it) when the Universe didn’t exist opposed to a time when it did – ontologically or otherwise. What God does, on his side of the equation, is not motion. How it appears on the other side of the equation may, but is irrelevant.

That which does not consist of parts, i.e., which is infinite, does not per se “move.” Neither is there another thing with the capability of moving the Infinite. The argument presents us with a wholly inadequate idea of “motion” where the Infinite is concerned. The argument is no more than the absurd argument of the “heavier rock.” Unless a thing is composite, it cannot self-move. Unless there is an extrinsic thing that can move a non-composite thing, it will not move, and is not subject to motion. The OP’s original argument is an argument from non-sense. It represents the integration of a disorder into a universe of order.

God bless,
jd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I disagree. Metaphysics involves an epistemological certainty that cannot be provided by mere observation, and that is where it differs from Science. Don’t get me wrong, observation is a necessary part of it, but my understanding of metaphysics isn’t just pointing out the fact that we all perceive causality and then saying that everything has a cause. But rather Metaphysical knowledge begins with precise definitions and distinctions between being and nothing, form and substance, esse and essence, and then extrapolating from those distinctions and definitions the fact that everything that changes, or begins to have an essence, form, or being, has a cause.

Metaphysics is more than intuitive induction. It is certain knowledge.

Though I value Thomistic Metaphysics I would qualify " certain " knowledge. Thomas is a canonised saint but his philosophy has not been canonized. He was certainly wrong on the question of ensoulment. A minor point I admit. Still it was wrong. I would rather say his Metaphysics and its conclusions give us a certitude about as perfect as Metaphysical reasoning can give. Though the certitude of Faith is absolute.

Have you read either Summa or Essence and Existence, or taken a course of studies in Scholastic Philosophy? I think you will find what I said is true. Thomas begins his " proofs " with what is easily observed, then proceeds to the metaphysical level, after giving a simple example ( easily seen by common observation) to illustrate what is going to explain metaphysically, then concludes to the existence of a First Unmoved Mover, etc. Science did not enter into his " proofs." And if I said something ( and I guess I did, not thinking it would be held so literally), then I appologize. I certainly did not mean to imply that the " proofs " were based in any way on science. I have nothing against science, I think it is facinating, I even think scienc fiction can be facinating. But I am no scientist and I take my hat off to scientists, they have a grasp on something that is beyond me. My science stopped at chemistry and my math stopped at trigonometry and college algebra.

I’m pretty up on the Metaphysics of Thomas and the Scholastics though I don’t pretend to be an expert. Actuality, potentiality, form and matter, substantial form and prime matter, existence and essence, efficient cause, material cause, formal cause, final cause, interior and exterior intentionality, proportionality, analogy, relationships, being, act, to be, primary and secondary actuality and potentiality are all part of this metaphysics. Sometimes it is difficult for the man in the street ( me ) not to get some of these " realities " confused.

:banghead:

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Though I value Thomistic Metaphysics I would qualify " certain " knowledge. Thomas is a canonised saint but his philosophy has not been canonized. He was certainly wrong on the question of ensoulment.

While you’re of course correct that Aquinas’s philosophy has not been canonized (and there are some legitimate contending philosophers, like Blessed John Duns Scotus), I’d like to point out that his PHILOSOPHY on ensoulment was, IMO, correct. His mistakes regarding ensoulment were purely scientific.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Hey Linus,*

I’ll respond to this section of your post as its the bit which seems to be directed at me.*

You’re ok up to here.

This is where we starting hitting troubled waters. Because essentially above you’ve stated that “if X is pure actuality it must also be supreme in every property”. Now firstly this doesn’t actually follow from any argument I’ve heard thus far, and secondly it appears to cause some significant problems. For example it would mean that God is also supreme in smellyness, and hairiness, and evilness, and stupidity, and red-ness and green-ness, and inanimateness… Etc.

Unfortunately in this part you are assuming the conclusion. This makes your argument tautological. In other words your argument amounts to - IF Aquinas’s conclusion is correct THEN the first mover is an intentional being which directs all others (which is Aquinas’s conclusion) hence this is circular.

Again, this is circular. IF the cause of the universe is a personal being THEN it is reasonable to believe that there is a purpose to the universe. But thus far we have not established that the cause of the universe is a personal being so we have no reason to judge that the universe must have a purpose because thus far no purpose has been detected.*

Again thus far we have no reason to say that the first cause is a personal being. Therefore it’s difficult to assign any purposes to such a being. Also thus far there is no reason given to believe that the first cause has any interest in living things, and certainly no reason to believe that it is interested in humans in particular. Obviously given how utterly inhospitable the vast majority of the universe is to either humans or indeed any other living things, it would make little sense to suppose *it to have been designed for the express purpose of housing living things let alone humans specifically.

To raise an objection is not invalidate the argument. It is the simplest thing to object. The arguments are not circular. Badly stated perhaps. Thomas, in the Summa Theologiae and in the Summa Contra Gentiles goes to great length to show what I have tried to state. In the Summa Theologiae, the argument goes on for about 90 pages.

Of course, what people regard as " evil " or unpleasantness is the common conundrum raised - as though there were no answer. All beings possess an essence which consists of essential marker by which we recognize the essence or form as placing a being in a specific class. That is what makes it good, that it exists. But each being has accidental qualities not essential to its essence - hairiness, smelliness, coloring, inanimateness, size and the like and whether they are good or bad would depend on their purpose. By stupidity I assume you mean a lack of what would be regarded as normal intelligence in an animal or a human. To the degree it falls below the standard allowed by the essence of the particular being involved it would point to some accident in the matter or the composition of the matter. Moral evil on the other hand is a missuse of the will. The will fails to follow the good pointed out to it by the intellect. The question you raise is " …shouldn’t these defects then not point to defects in God…" The answer is no. Certainly God allows things, accidents, defects, evil to occur. For what purpose no one has yet been able to discover. But he does not cause them. And we cannot say for that reason God is bad or defective because that would be impossible. As Thomas points out and this is also known through Christian Revealation, God is pure actuality. All perfection is embodied in his act of to be. Evil would introduce a division in his essence. He is either pure goodness or pure evil. In Scriptures is identified as the " …way the truth and the life…"

You keep bringing up the point that I have failed to prove that God is a personal God who is a personal God who is interested in us. On the other hand I have shown or tried to show that he is the final cause drawing all things to himself and directing all things to himself as their final end. Man’s intellect has made him aware that God exists and that he has provided him with the means to make his life enjoyable ( relatively at least), that the world and the univers seems to be ordered to his benefit ( and I think science, besides common sense proves this - you objection here is unwarranted). It should be clear to man that God is interested in him and man should give thanks to his creator, his sustainer, and inquire further to find out more clearly what moral obligations has in this regard.

Tell me something. Is all your reading concentrated on authors who hate Thomas Aquinas or who despise people of faith? Sure seems like it to me. Have you read Edward Fesser? He has an interesting blog by the way, though at the moment I think he headed for Australia to do battle with — well you know or can guess.

I really do think you might profit from reading some Scholastic Philosophy or even the Catechism ot the Catholic Church. A Manual of Modern Scholastic Philosophy Vol 1 and 2 by Cardinal Mercier is available on line. So is the Catechism.
archive.org/details/manualofmodernsc02merc
vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM

newadvent.org/summa/
www2.nd.edu/Departments/Maritain/etext/gc.htm

These sources will answer the questions you have raised much better than I can. Why not give one or more a try. I would really start with the Catechism, what are you afraid of?

:banghead:

 

[Shike]

Linusthe2nd;9561351:

Metaphysics is nothing but organized and clarified common sense.

I disagree. Metaphysics involves an epistemological certainty that cannot be provided by mere observation, and that is where it differs from Science.

I think here you are both talking past each other. I assume Linusthe2nd uses “common sense” the way the Medievals used it, cooperation of all the 5 senses of an individual that witness to the same truth. ReapReason seems to mean it in a less technical sense or more modern one… some kind of intuition that many people hold.

Nothing to see here, move along

 

[Shike]

Now firstly this doesn’t actually follow from any argument I’ve heard thus far, and secondly it appears to cause some significant problems. For example it would mean that God is also supreme in smellyness, and hairiness, and evilness, and stupidity, and red-ness and green-ness, and inanimateness… Etc.

If you want to be taken seriously (by me) you need to spend some time with Richard Dawkin’s God Delusion (I think it might be chapter 3) and the small excerpt of the Five Ways from the Summa Theologiae, comparing them side by side at the same time.

If you make a critical examination of the two and take notes, well, then perhaps we can go somewhere interesting. Unfortunately it is necessary to clear the air in this cultural climate.

 

[Shike]

Now firstly this doesn’t actually follow from any argument I’ve heard thus far, and secondly it appears to cause some significant problems. For example it would mean that God is also supreme in smellyness, and hairiness, and evilness, and stupidity, and red-ness and green-ness, and inanimateness… Etc.

But if you want a short answer as to why your objection misses the point it is at least because:

Privations are not perfections but the absence of something that should belong to a being. Thus evilness and stupidity are not considered. In the same vein, neither can inanimateness be considered as it is the absence or lack of the soul (principle of life).
Smellyness, hairiness, and color are not a problem because 1) it’s doubtful that these attributes have superlatives in the first place, and 2) these attributes require composition (and hence motion in the A/T sense) and hence require the operation of outside entities affecting God. The proofs in question show a being that is not affected in such a way by anything.

These considerations must be taken into account when interpreting what one means when he talks about the perfection of God.

 

[ReapReason]

I think here you are both talking past each other. I assume Linusthe2nd uses “common sense” the way the Medievals used it, cooperation of all the 5 senses of an individual that witness to the same truth. ReapReason seems to mean it in a less technical sense or more modern one… some kind of intuition that many people hold.

Nothing to see here, move along

Explain to me how you have drawn this conclusion from my post.

 

[Candide_West]

There are different kinds of causality that metaphysics takes into account. While the scientific method allows us to describe quantum events as not having a mechanistic billiard ball type of physical cause, science does not and cannot by definition of its own epistemological context provide further evidence that quantum objects sustain their own being in existence and is the cause of its own motion, form or essence.*

When a scientist says that quantum interactions don’t have a cause, they mean they don’t have a physical cause in the classical sense of the word. They say no more than that. They are not making a metaphysical claim about causality in general.

The problem you immediately run into there of course is that once you have eliminated observation you then have nothing upon which to base your metaphysical statements.*

For example the statement “every change has a cause” was based on observation of causality. If you say that you are not talking about physical causes then on what do you base the statement? Nothing, it becomes an assumption and one which does not conform with our observations at that.

Now if you’re happy for metaphysics to be divorced from reality then of course this isn’t a problem. The snag comes when you try to use truths that you’ve discerned using metaphysics to tell you things about reality. It is no longer able to, because you cut the tie connecting to reality. In other words all you’ve got is a system that can say that certain things are true and false within that system. The “truths” you identify in it may have a relationship to reality, or they may not. Much like Maths.

You do not understand metaphysics so please don’t pretend that you do. On top of that you seem to have a habit of judging other forms of knowledge according to the limited epistemological context of the scientific method,

That 's a very judgemental statement from someone who is complaining about someone else making judgements.

*and yet you make absolute unfounded metaphysical claims at the same time which have nothing to do with what scientists have actually said.

Ok, what “absolute unfounded metaphysical claims” have I made then?*

*In other words you are taking the scientific sense of causality and applying it universally without justification. *

I’m talking about the only form of causality the existence of which we actually have evidence - physical causes. It is of course possible that there are other forms of causality, but as yet they are undetected.*

Scientists are saying it does not have a physical cause in the classical sense of the word. They are not by that judgement saying it does not have any cause at all, and neither do they have the epistemological authority to do so.

True enough that we cannot prove a negative. That’s pretty basic. We can’t prove the flying spaghetti monster is non-existent either. But given the fact we have no evidence for its existence we tend to not bother trying to disprove its existence anyway.*

Incidentally it is worth noting that we have determined that quantum events have no hidden variables behind them. So if there is some kind of cause behind quantum events, then it too is non-deterministic.

Therefore if you are going to say that quantum effects have no kind of cause whatsoever, then you are going to have to come up with you own metaphysical defence as to why you think that to be the case. Science cannot help you. Otherwise, you are just making *circular arguments based on ill-founded ideas about how science works as a principle of knowledge.

If in your statement you were referring to metaphysics giving us certain knowledge of things within metaphysics, then I’ve got no problem with that. The problem only arrives when you start doing metaphysics from assumptions which do not conform to observed reality and then use the results to state “certain knowledge” about reality.

 

[Candide_West]

To raise an objection is not invalidate the argument. It is the simplest thing to object. The arguments are not circular. Badly stated perhaps. Thomas, in the Summa Theologiae and in the Summa Contra Gentiles goes to great length to show what I have tried to state. In the Summa Theologiae, the argument goes on for about 90 pages.*

Ok, if you feel your argument was badly stated then feel free to have another shot at it. I’m not in a huge rush here.

Of course, what people regard as " evil " or unpleasantness is the common conundrum raised - as though there were no answer. All beings possess an essence which consists of essential marker by which we recognize the essence or form as placing a being in a specific class. That is what makes it good, that it exists. But each being has accidental qualities not essential to its essence - hairiness, smelliness, coloring, inanimateness, size and the like and whether they are good or bad would depend on their purpose. By stupidity I assume you mean a lack of what would be regarded as normal intelligence in an animal or a human. To the degree it falls below the standard allowed by the essence of the particular being involved it would point to some accident in the matter or the composition of the matter. Moral evil on the other hand is a missuse of the will. The will fails to follow the good pointed out to it by the intellect. The question you raise is " …shouldn’t these defects then not point to defects in God…"

No, that isn’t the problem I raised at all. The issue here is that you have said without supporting it that if something is pure actuality then it must also be supreme in other characteristics.*

The fact that this must also mean that god is supreme in other characteristics which are not usually ascribed to the Christian god is also a problem but not the key problem.

You keep bringing up the point that I have failed to prove that God is a personal God who is a personal God who is interested in us.

Well I hate to say it but that is the objection that I raised originally and thus the objection that you are (presumably?) trying to answer. So until you or someone else has done so the objection stands. And since this objection means that Aquinas’s “proofs” don’t prove the existence of “God” but the existence of “something” this seems like an important objection to be overcome.

*On the other hand I have shown or tried to show that he is the final cause drawing all things to himself and directing all things to himself as their final end. Man’s intellect has made him aware that God exists and that he has provided him with the means to make his life enjoyable ( relatively at least), that the world and the univers seems to be ordered to his benefit ( and I think science, besides common sense proves this - you objection here is unwarranted).

People’s intellect have made them aware of the existence of thousands of different gods and supernatural entities. The vast majority of which I’m sure you and I are in agreement do not in fact exist.*

But this doesn’t change the fact that the universe does not seem to be ordered for our benefit. As I said, we are well adapted to living on earth, but that is what we would expect, after all, if we weren’t well adapted for living here our species would have gone extinct before we could have this conversation. If a person was dropped anywhere else, even in our own solar system they’d be dead in seconds or minutes at best, and the VAST majority of the rest of the universe appears to be no more appropriate for our habitation.

*It should be clear to man that God is interested in him and man should give thanks to his creator, his sustainer, and inquire further to find out more clearly what moral obligations has in this regard.

Well it certainly isn’t clear to me, or indeed many other people. Nor does there even seem to be any consensus on many important questions among those who do find it clear.*

Perhaps you could explain why you think these things are clear, then we can discuss. Simply saying that it is clear to you doesn’t really move the discussion forwards.*

Tell me something. Is all your reading concentrated on authors who hate Thomas Aquinas or who despise people of faith?*Sure seems like it to me. Have you read Edward Fesser? He has an interesting blog by the way, though at the moment I think he headed for Australia to do battle with — well you know or can guess.

Nope, indeed I haven’t read any authors who hate Aquinas or despise people of faith, well not books anyway, I’ve read a few such people ranting on the Internet but I tend to just ignore those.

I really do think you might profit from reading some Scholastic Philosophy or even the Catechism ot the Catholic Church. A Manual of Modern Scholastic Philosophy Vol 1 and 2 by Cardinal Mercier is available on line. So is the Catechism.*

These sources will answer the questions you have raised much better than I can.*

Thanks for the recommendations but from what you said earlier …

“None of the Scholastic Philosophers I know attempt to follow up on that point”

… they wouldn’t be able to answer the question.*

Why not give one or more a try. I would really start with the Catechism, what are you afraid of?

If you can recommend a source or quote from one that can answer the question then I’m more than happy to have a read of it, but as you’ve already said that those sources can’t provide an answer, looking to them to provide an answer sounds likely to be rather futile.

 

[Candide_West]

If you want to be taken seriously (by me) you need to spend some time with Richard Dawkin’s God Delusion (I think it might be chapter 3) and the small excerpt of the Five Ways from the Summa Theologiae, comparing them side by side at the same time.

If you make a critical examination of the two and take notes, well, then perhaps we can go somewhere interesting. Unfortunately it is necessary to clear the air in this cultural climate.

I’m sorry but what does this have to do with the price of fish???

The text you quoted was in reply to something I wrote to Linus because he claimed that X being pure actuality means that X is also supreme in all other characteristics. The problem is that this is unsupported. It is not (at least directly) related to Aquinas and nothing what so ever to do with Dawkins.

 

[Candide_West]

Hey Candide West,

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.*

In that case I’m not sure on what basis you were making your statement “Ergo, the efficient cause of all creation would also be the final cause of all creation.”

Perhaps I’m missing a link here somewhere, could you explain please?

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.

I’ll wait on the answer to the above for this I think.

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.

Again thus far I’ve encountered no effective arguments showing that the PM shown by the first way must necessarily be singular. If you have such an argument I would be interested to discuss.*

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.
*

Thanks I’ll add it to my list of book recommendations, alas it’s a rather long list but I’ll get to it.*

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!*

No worries, just please don’t be off put if I pick you up on these things I’m afraid I can be rather nitpicky at times (I fear I’m getting worse as I grow steadily older).

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

Likewise, I always enjoy it as well when others are able to test and stretch my viewpoint. It’s one of the benefits of being an atheist on a catholic website - finding oneself very much in the minority and hence having more opportunity for hearing challenging views.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

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.

Nice try but the ones you are trying to instruct aren’t interested in anything but trying to throw dust in your eyes. You err in thinking most people are really interested in the search for truth. The truth is that most people are purely ideological. Being an " A " to some is just like being a " Democrat " to some folks. They always were or their family always was or their " clique " is, so that’s what they will be and you won’t change them. You are wasting your energy.:yup: