M
Marc_Anthony
Guest
(Yes, I mean Prime Mover, much clearer way of putting it
)If God is omniscient, that would mean that He is conscious of His existence since it is not logically contradictory.
- Status
)If God is omniscient, that would mean that He is conscious of His existence since it is not logically contradictory.
C
Candide_West
Guest
But we haven’t got as far as a God yet, we’ve only got as far as showing that there was a Prime Mover(s). My question is how you get from the Aquinas’s conclusion -*(Yes, I mean Prime Mover, much clearer way of putting it
If God is omniscient, that would mean that He is conscious of His existence since it is not logically contradictory.
“a Prime Mover or Movers existed”*
to*
“there was a singular Prime mover and we should consider it to be a personal being”.*
Thus far I have seen no argument which achieves that. And until that is in place there is no reason to refer to the Prime Mover as “he” or “she” or “they”, let alone names with many additional connotations like “God”.
M
Marc_Anthony
Guest
Oh, THIS is what you mean. In that case if you think none of Aquinas’s arguments achieve that then good day. I can’t help you.
C
Candide_West
Guest
Fair enough, thus far nobody else has been able to provide one either. In truth I suspect that even Aquinas himself wasnt able to, hence why he skipped over this bit.
Thanks for having a shot at it anyway.*
M
Marc_Anthony
Guest
Wait, hold on-I think I might see at least part of the problem here.
Ever seen Aquinas’s other four proofs? They define God in other ways besides “prim-e mover” (note that I am not making arguments for the proofs, I’m assuming for ease of usage that the proofs prove what they attempt to).
-The second proof defines God in terms of efficient causality; God is the “First Cause”, not the “Prime Mover”. So God makes everything else move (like a car rolling) in the first proof, but God causes everything (like a fire lighting) in the second proof. They’re closely related, but different. So now we know that God is the Prime Mover and the First Efficient Cause.
-The third proof defines God as the Necessary Being. In this proof it is said that God must cause everything else to exits. So here we learn that God also has the ability to create literally anything not logically contradictory.
-The fourth proof defines God as the Perfect Being. God is the “measuring stick” for all that is “perfect” (things like goodness, knowledge, etc…it’s a concept specified more in detail in the rest of the Summa). At any rate, that would mean he is omniscient (maximum knowledge), omnipotent (maximum power), and omnibenevolent (maximum goodness).
-The fifth proof defines God as what I’ll refer to as the “Intelligent Director”. Basically since things with no intelligence act the same way nearly every time (i.e., a match when struck on the right surface almost always produces a flame), there needs to be something that “directs” them, called God. So we know that God has the power to will things already in existence.
newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm
All of these qualities are explained in far more detail in the other sections of the Summa I posted.
Does this help at all?
Ever seen Aquinas’s other four proofs? They define God in other ways besides “prim-e mover” (note that I am not making arguments for the proofs, I’m assuming for ease of usage that the proofs prove what they attempt to).
-The second proof defines God in terms of efficient causality; God is the “First Cause”, not the “Prime Mover”. So God makes everything else move (like a car rolling) in the first proof, but God causes everything (like a fire lighting) in the second proof. They’re closely related, but different. So now we know that God is the Prime Mover and the First Efficient Cause.
-The third proof defines God as the Necessary Being. In this proof it is said that God must cause everything else to exits. So here we learn that God also has the ability to create literally anything not logically contradictory.
-The fourth proof defines God as the Perfect Being. God is the “measuring stick” for all that is “perfect” (things like goodness, knowledge, etc…it’s a concept specified more in detail in the rest of the Summa). At any rate, that would mean he is omniscient (maximum knowledge), omnipotent (maximum power), and omnibenevolent (maximum goodness).
-The fifth proof defines God as what I’ll refer to as the “Intelligent Director”. Basically since things with no intelligence act the same way nearly every time (i.e., a match when struck on the right surface almost always produces a flame), there needs to be something that “directs” them, called God. So we know that God has the power to will things already in existence.
newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm
All of these qualities are explained in far more detail in the other sections of the Summa I posted.
Does this help at all?
S
swanlinnet
Guest
All ‘change’ in the so-called corporeal world of matter is contingent upon a perceiving being. From egg to a chick, for instance, from hot to cold …this ‘change’ is inviolably contingent upon a perceiving being.
In the so-called ‘realm of thought’, ‘change’ is again experienced exclusively by a perceiving being. For what seemed a good idea yesterday, today is transformed into a bad idea by this same perceiving being called man who, paradoxically, deemed it to be irrevocably good in the first place.
Since God is unchanging …“Is now and ever shall be …” it follows His Judgement, unlike ours’, will never err or vacillate when determining what is ‘good’ or ‘bad’. It is fitting of one, such, infallible being, therefore, to redeem us from our judgements. For it is our choice alone which will unswervingly determine our end. And if our judgement is unsound, the fact of life still remains that we must act. It is therefore a reflecton of His justness for Him to help us.
Since our aim is always happiness, it is true we shall never realise this fully without first ammending what we choose. It has already been shown, however, how our weak and vacillating nature plunges us to particular ends’ we ourselves had first determined to have scrupulously avoided.
It is a salutary lesson, once we have learned our will is worthless. For to be sporadically decieved by our own judgement into beleiving bad is good and vice-versa is frustrating and humiliating enough experience to force us to seek out our happiness on New Ground.
Upon New Ground the ‘old’ sees the ‘new’ emerging and dies its death. Dying to onself is, indeed, the phrase current for this transformation in theological/philosophical texts.
Since all ‘change’ is contingent upon a perceiving being, the concept of an ‘old’ man perceiving the ‘new’ man observes this premise. However, what logical ground could possibly support the claim: “All change is contingent upon a perceiving being” if, indeed, the ‘old’ man and ‘new’ man are one and the same being ?
To that I answer experience. For only through having experienced both the ‘old’ and ‘new’ do we, in turn, know that ‘change’ has occured. The new man will have emerged once he has first decided to follow The Teaching of Jesus Christ. By acting … not judging …do we know this Truth.
This essay is by no means a comprehensive picture. I am not a Theologian. Even so, there are no violations of so-called principles of knowledge within.
God bless, Vincent
In the so-called ‘realm of thought’, ‘change’ is again experienced exclusively by a perceiving being. For what seemed a good idea yesterday, today is transformed into a bad idea by this same perceiving being called man who, paradoxically, deemed it to be irrevocably good in the first place.
Since God is unchanging …“Is now and ever shall be …” it follows His Judgement, unlike ours’, will never err or vacillate when determining what is ‘good’ or ‘bad’. It is fitting of one, such, infallible being, therefore, to redeem us from our judgements. For it is our choice alone which will unswervingly determine our end. And if our judgement is unsound, the fact of life still remains that we must act. It is therefore a reflecton of His justness for Him to help us.
Since our aim is always happiness, it is true we shall never realise this fully without first ammending what we choose. It has already been shown, however, how our weak and vacillating nature plunges us to particular ends’ we ourselves had first determined to have scrupulously avoided.
It is a salutary lesson, once we have learned our will is worthless. For to be sporadically decieved by our own judgement into beleiving bad is good and vice-versa is frustrating and humiliating enough experience to force us to seek out our happiness on New Ground.
Upon New Ground the ‘old’ sees the ‘new’ emerging and dies its death. Dying to onself is, indeed, the phrase current for this transformation in theological/philosophical texts.
Since all ‘change’ is contingent upon a perceiving being, the concept of an ‘old’ man perceiving the ‘new’ man observes this premise. However, what logical ground could possibly support the claim: “All change is contingent upon a perceiving being” if, indeed, the ‘old’ man and ‘new’ man are one and the same being ?
To that I answer experience. For only through having experienced both the ‘old’ and ‘new’ do we, in turn, know that ‘change’ has occured. The new man will have emerged once he has first decided to follow The Teaching of Jesus Christ. By acting … not judging …do we know this Truth.
This essay is by no means a comprehensive picture. I am not a Theologian. Even so, there are no violations of so-called principles of knowledge within.
God bless, Vincent
C
Candide_West
Guest
I’m afraid this doesn’t help much. For the sake of discussion let’s ignore the problems with each of the 5 ways individually (they’ve been discussed extensively elsewhere anyway) and assume they are successful in demonstrating what they attempt to.*
We still lack an argument that the First Cause shown by the first way is also the Perfect Being of the forth way (noting that Aquinas uses the term “being” in the Aristotelian sense to refer only to things which exist, not as in “living being”). Nor do we have an argument showing that the Prime Mover is also the Intelligent Director etc etc. If you can construct an argument to show that each of the ways refers to the same thing then that would be definite progress. Again Aquinas skipped that argument by simply renaming each in turn “God” without justifying doing so.
However, it’s worth noting that none of these arguments actually make the case for personal being as a characteristic of that which they demonstrate. The one that comes closest is the 5th but the limited teleology it shows could be achieved just as well by a rule book as by an intelligence.*
M
Marc_Anthony
Guest
One striking feature about the five proofs you’ll notice every proof is very interrelated. There’s a lot of overlap. If you prove God one way many times you’re over half way there to proving God in another way. Indeed, sometimes the distinctions in-between the proofs were so subtle that it was heard for me to come up with a specific descriptor for each definition proven.
You do pose an interesting question though; I’d like to know the exact steps to get from point A to point E.
I’m afraid I’m still confused as to what you mean by personal God. The proofs (if they work, which we’re assuming here for the sake of argument) at least prove a limited omniscience and omnipotence, and in the other sections of the Summa Aquinas expands upon these qualities in greater detail. Omniscience as defined by Aquinas means knowing everything that is not logically contradictory to know. It is not logically for God to know He exists, therefore if God is omniscient God knows He exists.
C
Candide_West
Guest
Agreed that there are relationships between at least some of them, I suspect that you’ve got a decent start in showing that the first three refer to one thing (not that I’ve ever actually seen an argument that proves this).
Yes, but from which of the 5 ways do you get omniscience? If you are referring to the 4th way then I don’t think it hits the mark there. The reason for this is that the 4th way only gives you a handle on characteristics which are relative ie “perfection” cannot be measured in an absolute way, so if we ignore the problems with the 4th way then we agree it must be measured against some absolute standard of perfection. This argument doesn’t apply with knowledge because measurement of knowledge is not relative but absolute. You can have zero knowledge in a way that you cannot have zero perfection. Hence the 4th way cannot be used to show that there must be an “all knower” in the way that it can be used to show that there is a “perfect thing”.*
If you are taking omniscience from somewhere else then I’d be interested to know where?
Also I’m not actually clear that ONLY a self aware being could be omniscient. Probably depends how you define the term, if it just means something like “containing all information” then there doesn’t seem to be any need for sentience (beyond an entry *noting its own existence).
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
May I offer a few comments? Some are forgetting the key to the first way. It is precisely this. Thomas says "…whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that toward which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves in as much as it is in act.
This means that " …a certain potentiallity is actualized by something whose potentiality is itself actualized by something whose potentiality is itself actualized by ( something whose potentiality is actualized by, etc ) and so on…such a series can only possibly terminate in something which is not reduced to act or actualized by anything else, but which just isin act or actual and thus " unmoving "…Eventually this regress must terminate in something which here and now actualizes potentialities without itself being actualized, an unmoved mover. " ( Edward Feser, in Aquinas, pg 73)
So the Unmoved Mover ( Aristotle’s Prime Mover as interpreted by Aquinas) is Actus Purus or pure actuality having no potentiality whatsoever. Such a being, a Pure Actuality is immediately recognized by Christians as God.
Several things must be seen about such an Acutality. First, it must be outside the ontological members of the series since it is a pure actuality having no potentiality whereas the members of the series are all beings composed of actuality and potentiality.
Secondly such a series could actually be eternal since the Unmoved Mover itself is outside the series ontologically. One of our posters objected that an Unmoved Mover would not be required if the series was eternal. This answers that objection. It must be remembered that Thomas designed the proof to account for the possibility of an eternal universe. His proof shows that even if the universe is eternal an Unmoved Mover is required. What most people forget is that the Unmoved Mover is ontologically outside the series. Thomas could have made this more clear but he does explain himself in other places. However it is clear from the argument he gave if you think about it thoroughly.
Now it can be shown that all the proofs conclude in a First Something which can indeed be reduced to a Pure Actuality and thus can be identified easily as the Christian God. Thomas will go on in Book 1, Question 3 and following to analyize the nature of the Unmoved Mover, etc. or God. He will show that the First Being, God, has all the characteristics of the Christian God, including Intelligence, Will, Justice, Love, Goodness, Mercy, Personhood, etc. is Omnipotent, Omnescient, Omnipresent and, the creator, maintainer, and orderer of all that exists.
Some people will not look into Thomas to see how this is done. All questions and objections raised are answered by Thomas in Book 1, it does require looking. But it is invalid to say the answer isn’t there or there is no answer if one doesn’t take the trouble to look. And it is asking an awful lot to ask someone to lead you by the hand when one does not see from the history of these discussions that there would be anything to be gained by making the effort.
This means that " …a certain potentiallity is actualized by something whose potentiality is itself actualized by something whose potentiality is itself actualized by ( something whose potentiality is actualized by, etc ) and so on…such a series can only possibly terminate in something which is not reduced to act or actualized by anything else, but which just isin act or actual and thus " unmoving "…Eventually this regress must terminate in something which here and now actualizes potentialities without itself being actualized, an unmoved mover. " ( Edward Feser, in Aquinas, pg 73)
So the Unmoved Mover ( Aristotle’s Prime Mover as interpreted by Aquinas) is Actus Purus or pure actuality having no potentiality whatsoever. Such a being, a Pure Actuality is immediately recognized by Christians as God.
Several things must be seen about such an Acutality. First, it must be outside the ontological members of the series since it is a pure actuality having no potentiality whereas the members of the series are all beings composed of actuality and potentiality.
Secondly such a series could actually be eternal since the Unmoved Mover itself is outside the series ontologically. One of our posters objected that an Unmoved Mover would not be required if the series was eternal. This answers that objection. It must be remembered that Thomas designed the proof to account for the possibility of an eternal universe. His proof shows that even if the universe is eternal an Unmoved Mover is required. What most people forget is that the Unmoved Mover is ontologically outside the series. Thomas could have made this more clear but he does explain himself in other places. However it is clear from the argument he gave if you think about it thoroughly.
Now it can be shown that all the proofs conclude in a First Something which can indeed be reduced to a Pure Actuality and thus can be identified easily as the Christian God. Thomas will go on in Book 1, Question 3 and following to analyize the nature of the Unmoved Mover, etc. or God. He will show that the First Being, God, has all the characteristics of the Christian God, including Intelligence, Will, Justice, Love, Goodness, Mercy, Personhood, etc. is Omnipotent, Omnescient, Omnipresent and, the creator, maintainer, and orderer of all that exists.
Some people will not look into Thomas to see how this is done. All questions and objections raised are answered by Thomas in Book 1, it does require looking. But it is invalid to say the answer isn’t there or there is no answer if one doesn’t take the trouble to look. And it is asking an awful lot to ask someone to lead you by the hand when one does not see from the history of these discussions that there would be anything to be gained by making the effort.
P
Perplexity
Guest
Linus: I have a number of worries about the First Way, but perhaps you could take a look at one of them and try to find its weak-point?
The Argument:
Real quick, when I say x had active or passive potency, I’m not necessarily speaking in temporal terms. At the very least, x’s active or passive potency must be causally prior to its being a mover.
Now, this is deductively valid meaning you cannot reject (4) unless you deny one of the premises. But, which one can you deny? It doesn’t seem possible to rationally deny any of them.
If you reject (1), you have to say something can actualize a potency (be a mover) without being able to (active potency). [Contradiction]
If you reject (2), you have to say a thing is able to cause something (active potency), but unable to become a cause (passive potency). [Incoherent]
(3) is analytically true. [Undeniable]
It seems therefore, that we must endorse (4), which says there are no unmoved movers.
Conclusion:
You can either reject the conclusion, accept the conclusion, or neither reject nor accept the conclusion.
If you reject it, you’re committed to at least one of the contradictions/absurdities I’ve described above.
If you accept it, you’re committed to an infinite regression of moved movers.
Perhaps you neither want to embrace the absurdities I’ve described nor an infinite regression. This would commit you to agnosticism: you neither affirm nor deny the conclusion.
Would this mean you’d have to become atheist? Not in the least. A huge intellectual presence in Christianity (and non-creedal specific theism) does not accept that God is the unmoved mover, you could easily adopt their position. Aquinas wouldn’t roll over and sacrifice his faith if this argument failed, would he?
The Argument:
- If x is a mover, x had active potency.
- If x had active potency, x had passive potency.
- If x had passive potency, x is not an unmoved mover.
- Therefore, if x is a mover, x is not an unmoved mover.
Real quick, when I say x had active or passive potency, I’m not necessarily speaking in temporal terms. At the very least, x’s active or passive potency must be causally prior to its being a mover.
Now, this is deductively valid meaning you cannot reject (4) unless you deny one of the premises. But, which one can you deny? It doesn’t seem possible to rationally deny any of them.
If you reject (1), you have to say something can actualize a potency (be a mover) without being able to (active potency). [Contradiction]
If you reject (2), you have to say a thing is able to cause something (active potency), but unable to become a cause (passive potency). [Incoherent]
(3) is analytically true. [Undeniable]
It seems therefore, that we must endorse (4), which says there are no unmoved movers.
Conclusion:
You can either reject the conclusion, accept the conclusion, or neither reject nor accept the conclusion.
If you reject it, you’re committed to at least one of the contradictions/absurdities I’ve described above.
If you accept it, you’re committed to an infinite regression of moved movers.
Perhaps you neither want to embrace the absurdities I’ve described nor an infinite regression. This would commit you to agnosticism: you neither affirm nor deny the conclusion.
Would this mean you’d have to become atheist? Not in the least. A huge intellectual presence in Christianity (and non-creedal specific theism) does not accept that God is the unmoved mover, you could easily adopt their position. Aquinas wouldn’t roll over and sacrifice his faith if this argument failed, would he?
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
Sorry, your argument is not based on Thomas’ argument. Secondly, you have not defined what you mean by " active potency " and " passive potency. " Thirdly, Thomas’ argument makes it clear that the purely actual Unmoved Mover is active here and now on whatever potentialities moving toward actuality. It is moves all beings that are moved because it is a pure actuality existing outside the ontological order of the series and thus operates even on an infinite regress.
Notice that there are only two possibilities for the the ontological composition of beings composed of act and potency. Those whose essence is a composit of matter and form plus existence and those whose essecne has no matter but has a potentiality for existence and is thus a composit.But the Unmoved Mover has no ontological potentiality whatsoever and thus is uncomposed in any respect, whose essence is pure actuality or existence. So the Unmoved Mover stands outside the ontological reality of any conceiveable order of beings composed of actuality and potentiality. In other words, the Unmoved Mover can act upon and move all beings that exist without being a part of their ontological order.
So I am not forced to be an atheist as you conclude. And even if I am wrong I would still not be forced to your conclusion. I would simply conclude that my analysis is incorrect. I would still have many other valid reasons for believing that God exists. I would still be a sinner in many ways but I would still beleve God exists and that Revelation and all it implies is true and reasonable.
P.S. I was never very good at " schmatic logic " when I studied logic. My mind doesn’t work that way.
P
Perplexity
Guest
I agree, but it’s against Thomas’ argument.
That’s true, I didn’t feel the need to though: I’m just using the Thomist definitions.
I agree, but my argument attempts to show that there is no unmoved mover. So, when I say you’d be committed to an infinite regression of moved movers if you endorse the conclusion, I just mean there’d be no unmoved mover underlying this regression.
This is the idea my argument objects to, that a mover could be unmoved.
Well, I didn’t say my argument forces you to be an atheist. I said you wouldn’t have to become an atheist if you accepted the argument. I thought that was important to note for a costs and benefit analysis of the conclusion.
That’s no trouble at allP.S. I was never very good at " schmatic logic " when I studied logic. My mind doesn’t work that way.
Basically, the only knowledge of logic required to adequately assess my argument is that in order to reject my conclusion, you have to deny one of the premises.I’m unclear on which one you’re objecting to. Which premise (1), (2), or (3)] do you find problematic?
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
- Change occurs
- Nothing can change itself
- Whatever causes change must itself be either changing or be an unchanged changer
- An infinite series of changers is impossible
- Therefore there must exist an unchanged changer (a being of pure actuality
As was pointed out by the P.O., and by myself later, a pure actuality that Aquinas called the Prime Mover ( some translate this as the Unmoved Mover or the Unchanged Changer Mover ) is definitely required, it must supply the moving power ( energy, flux of force, etc) to the other movers or there would be no movement. So the conclusion is valid.
It should be noted that we are talking about movement/change here and now, simultaneously occurring, not only in a single example but in trillions x 10 to the trillionth power occurring throughout the universe this instant, the last instant back to infinity as far as you want to go and the next instant as far into infinity as you want to go. This is a vertical cause of motion ending in the First Mover at this moment and every moment into the dim past and into the dim future. But each particular example of each motion/change ends the First Cause, here and now, not " a First Cause". You begin to see the vast power of this entity of pure actuality which Thomas called the Prime Mover.
Nor is this being " first " in time vis-vis the series of movers, at least not necessaily so. More properly this being is first by nature and by cause. For Thomas was not arguing against the possibility of an eternally existing universe.
Nor is this being to be conceived as a member of the series in the normal conception of the phrase because as a pure actuality it does on exist ontologically in the same order of beings as those composed of act and potency, in this case of beings composed of an essence ( including matter and form ) and existence.
[QOUTE]Here’s an oddity: If nothing can change itself, and there is no infinite series of changers, then how could the unchanged changer perform its first action? No changer could have caused it to, and it could not have caused itself to. So, its first action must have been entirely random. i.e., irrational.
The First Cause simply is, it is a pure actuality. Either it is or nothing is and this is an absurdity because the universe clearly exists. It of course does not change but is the source of change in the change of beings composed of act and potency. Really, your statement makes no sense whatsoever.
Have you all found out yet where Thomas talks about the Person of God. I don’t imagine you have though I have told you where to look several times. .
More on something else in the future.
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
WrongO!!!
You don’t want to admit such a being could exist because you are committed to some type of materialism or mechanism.
I still can’t find a reliable Thomist using " active potency " and " passive potency. " I do not regard Craig as a reliable Thomist, not entirely. But it is a fact that the Unmoved and Unmoveable Mover is pure actuality, having no potency whatever. The Unmoved Mover moves the beings it moves by a flux of energy, power, etc. Since it is pure actuality we cannot suppose to understand this kind of action because we have no direct " vision " of such a being, we cannot measure it, or put it in a test tube, no see it under the most powerful microscope of any design. It has no matter in its composition because it is pure potentiality. Let’s just say it moves composed beings by Will and/ some intellectual power, vaguely similar to the way the human soul moves the body in every way that it can move or change. The soul is immaterial, just like the Prime Mover, but is not pure actuality. It is both in act and in potency in many ways, almost countless ways but still very limited compared to the Prime Mover.
Now I see why you proposed that " schematic " argument to me!! To present me with a false dilemma. The dilemma is false because the Prime Mover has no potency, active or otherwise. And its acts cause all movement of every being composed of act and potency, whether such beings have matter and form in their essence or whether their essence is simply a form which has existence and moves in a non-material way…
But without such a Being, no movement/change would happen.
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
Great job on both posts.
Some people don’t want to understand.
Some people can’t understand.
Some people can’t take the time to understand.
Some people just have other interests, so they will never understand.
Some people don’t have sufficient education, they will never understand.
But there are many reasons besides an argument from reason to believe in the existence of God. It would be the height of arrogance to suggest that this knowledge and its implications was closed to all but the intellectual few. God Bless the little people who believe.
Some people don’t want to understand.
Some people can’t understand.
Some people can’t take the time to understand.
Some people just have other interests, so they will never understand.
Some people don’t have sufficient education, they will never understand.
But there are many reasons besides an argument from reason to believe in the existence of God. It would be the height of arrogance to suggest that this knowledge and its implications was closed to all but the intellectual few. God Bless the little people who believe.
J
JDaniel
Guest
Perplexity:
Which is a good argument, and one which St. Thomas agrees with. Except, we cannot go back infinitely. Actual infinities just do not exist. By “actual” is meant “physical.” The only thing that is not physical is God. We have no choice. Either we MUST recede infinitely, or we MUST NOT. Since we can’t, we are left with only ONE choice. That there must be a First Mover. After due analysis, men have determined that this first Mover MUST be Infinite AND Immobile - due precisely to being Infinite.
The logic is not that difficult. Unless one does not understand what “infinity” means. Or, unless one denies what it means. But, most clear thinkers know what it means and because they would be grossly inconsistent within themselves, don’t deny it.
God bless,
jd
P
Perplexity
Guest
JDaniel: You seem to be reasoning as follows: Either the series of movers regresses infinitely, or there is a first mover. But, the series of movers cannot regress infinitely. Therefore, there is a first mover.
But, since I’m suggesting an unmoved mover cannot exist, combining your arguments against actual infinites with my arguments against an unmoved mover entails agnosticism.
The only way you can deduce the existence of an unmoved mover from the impossibility of actual infinites is if an unmoved mover could exist. You’d therefore have to show my arguments to be unsound first. So, we needn’t delve into whether actual infinites are impossible, you merely need to show that my arguments are unsound. I’ve proposed one to Linus which I’ll reproduce below, which premise do you reject?
The Argument:
Real quick, when I say x had active or passive potency, I’m not necessarily speaking in temporal terms. At the very least, x’s active or passive potency must be causally prior to its being a mover.
Now, this is deductively valid meaning you cannot reject (4) unless you deny one of the premises. But, which one can you deny? It doesn’t seem possible to rationally deny any of them.
If you reject (1), you have to say something can actualize a potency (be a mover) without being able to (active potency). [Contradiction]
If you reject (2), you have to say a thing is able to cause something (active potency), but unable to become a cause (passive potency). [Incoherent]
(3) is analytically true. [Undeniable]
It seems therefore, that we must endorse (4), which says there are no unmoved movers.
Conclusion:
You can either reject the conclusion, accept the conclusion, or neither reject nor accept the conclusion.
If you reject it, you’re committed to at least one of the contradictions/absurdities I’ve described above.
If you accept it, you’re committed to an infinite regression of moved movers.
Perhaps you neither want to embrace the absurdities I’ve described nor an infinite regression. This would commit you to agnosticism: you neither affirm nor deny the conclusion.
Would this mean you’d have to become atheist? Not in the least. A huge intellectual presence in Christianity (and non-creedal specific theism) does not accept that God is the unmoved mover, you could easily adopt their position. Aquinas wouldn’t roll over and sacrifice his faith if this argument failed, would he?
But, since I’m suggesting an unmoved mover cannot exist, combining your arguments against actual infinites with my arguments against an unmoved mover entails agnosticism.
The only way you can deduce the existence of an unmoved mover from the impossibility of actual infinites is if an unmoved mover could exist. You’d therefore have to show my arguments to be unsound first. So, we needn’t delve into whether actual infinites are impossible, you merely need to show that my arguments are unsound. I’ve proposed one to Linus which I’ll reproduce below, which premise do you reject?
The Argument:
- If x is a mover, x had active potency.
- If x had active potency, x had passive potency.
- If x had passive potency, x is not an unmoved mover.
- Therefore, if x is a mover, x is not an unmoved mover.
Real quick, when I say x had active or passive potency, I’m not necessarily speaking in temporal terms. At the very least, x’s active or passive potency must be causally prior to its being a mover.
Now, this is deductively valid meaning you cannot reject (4) unless you deny one of the premises. But, which one can you deny? It doesn’t seem possible to rationally deny any of them.
If you reject (1), you have to say something can actualize a potency (be a mover) without being able to (active potency). [Contradiction]
If you reject (2), you have to say a thing is able to cause something (active potency), but unable to become a cause (passive potency). [Incoherent]
(3) is analytically true. [Undeniable]
It seems therefore, that we must endorse (4), which says there are no unmoved movers.
Conclusion:
You can either reject the conclusion, accept the conclusion, or neither reject nor accept the conclusion.
If you reject it, you’re committed to at least one of the contradictions/absurdities I’ve described above.
If you accept it, you’re committed to an infinite regression of moved movers.
Perhaps you neither want to embrace the absurdities I’ve described nor an infinite regression. This would commit you to agnosticism: you neither affirm nor deny the conclusion.
Would this mean you’d have to become atheist? Not in the least. A huge intellectual presence in Christianity (and non-creedal specific theism) does not accept that God is the unmoved mover, you could easily adopt their position. Aquinas wouldn’t roll over and sacrifice his faith if this argument failed, would he?
J
JDaniel
Guest
Perplexity:
Despite your disclaimer, you are still inserting God into ‘time’. Everyone knows that causation, as we understand it as it applies to all that’s physical, is “temporal,” i.e, there is a “before and an after.” Or else, it is simultaneous, which, if asserted, is assailed by trying to show that in the example of, say, a stick moving a stone, there is a quanturm time difference between the stick and the stone.
Secondly, “active potency” means, “capable of imparting something." There is no reason why something that has “active potency” must be causally prior to that thing. That’s clearly preferential. For example, a rock exists in my neighborhood for a thousand years. Then, an oak tree grows from an acorn in my yard 980 years later. Plus, I am born 950 years after the rock is formed. Now, I break off a branch from that oak tree. I have active potency and the branch has active potency, the rock, passive potency (and may have active potency as well, but that is irrelevant at this point). Causally, neither I nor the branch, with which I am moving the stone, are causally prior to the stone.
Thirdly, God is Being as Being. He is not merely a being. Therefore, He does not possess anything. “Active potency” is a property that something has, i.e., possesses. Likewise, “passive potency” is a possessed property. Further, “passive potency” means that a thing is able to receiving something, such as motion, from an agent. Neither of these can be properties of God, if you’ll only think it through a bit more.
Your second premise most assuredly inserts an Infinite Being into ‘time’. This is completely illogical – even if you deny that God is infinite. You are denying “infinity” but affirming “God.” Huh?
Take a radioactive isotope; it has “active potency,” but, not “passive potency.” What would it “receive,” and from what source? Of course, it could have received its disorder from God - if one believed in God.
Another example: large bodies in space possess “gravity” - precisely due to their own mass. Who or what, from outside, imparts the property of “gravity” to them? Think about it.
The arguments you believe you have come up with are absolutely and completely unsubstantiated. Absolutely and completely unproven. I know you’d like to think that you have, or had, a case, but you don’t. Do you really not see that you have no case, that your arguments are meritless?
God bless,
jd
P
Perplexity
Guest
My argument doesn’t address God, it’s focused on the unmoved mover qua unmoved mover.
The disclaimer agrees with the gist of your point, the difficulties with simultaneous causation, the ordinary meaning of causation etc. But, any causal actions of the unmoved mover would be a-temporal and I didn’t want to question beggingly rule those out.
This makes perfect sense to me. But, I never said that something with active potency must be causally prior to that thing. I said that in order for a thing to be a mover, its potential to be a mover must first be reduced to act.
Whether or not God is being as being seems irrelevant to my argument since it’s only concerned with the unmoved mover qua unmoved mover, not with God. Thomists are the ones who argue that God has active potency anyways.
Huh? All premise (2) says (in your words) is that in order for x to have been “capable of imparting something”, x must have “been able to receive something” (i.e., the property of being the ‘imparter of something’).
It could accrue new properties by standing in relations it previously didn’t, such as being 10 feet away from an accelerating object instead of the 12 feet away it previously was.
If it is “absolutely and completely unsubstantiated”, you certainly haven’t shown it to be. All you need to do is defeat one of its premises. Out of your response, the only premise you addressed was (2), but all you said was it ‘inserted’ an ‘infinite being’ into time, and that was illogical.
- Status