A fresh look at Aquinas' 5 Proofs/Aristotle

[FirstMover]

I first learned of the 5 proofs about ten years ago. I admit up front that I have never read Aquinas in its original Latin, nor have I read Aristotle or Plato in Greek. This thread is for thoughts and feedback on the theory below and all of its potentially debatable points. I am not however going to repost what the proofs are but assume you know them with the accompanying familiarity with metaphysics.

1. The first mover implies, necessarily, that it is a limited being.
   Movement requires space and time. But let’s begin with space. In order for there to have been a creation out of nothing then there must be a limitation on the being of God. For if “I AM” then nothing would mean “I AM not.”. Nothing would be the absence of being. How can being and not being co-exist for the purpose of creation unless there were bounds to this singular instigating being. Even for this singular being to move it must have somewhere to move to, whether spacially or from one state to another which it does not yet posess. For God had the potential to create from all time, but only became the creator when he set the universe in motion. Therefore he was limited by time in order to facilitate this change. Again there must be a distinction between
   state one and state two and each state is limited by the difference.
   ​
2. Each creation is a limitation on the creator.

Everywhere something “else” exists that is not God. God Himself is not present. We recognize this in our recognition that pantheism is rejected. Though all things are said to share in God’s own being, those things that distinguish us, are in fact limitations on the space of God’s existence. Where my existence exists, apart from that existence which we share, cannot simultaneously be God unless I am god in which there would be no distinction.

1. God is a being that creates through self-limitation
   Because each creation limits that space that God can be God where tree is being tree distinct from God it means for every created being God is further limited.
2. God created from nothing not out of nothing.
   To distinguish on shape from another we need a border. The border that distinguishes our being from God’s being has to be nothing. To take from His being and surround it with nothing to bound it as He is bound, means that all we have comes from Him and we share in His being without in fact being Him. It is His being that animates us, yet because of the nothing we are divided and distinct. Being bounded by nothing makes us in fact made in His image.
3. A limitless first mover is only possible if the first movement is not additive requiring space and time but rather is subtractive thus creating space and time.
   if every creation is a self-limiting of God, it is not contrary to His divine nature to limit Himself. “He emptied himself…” (phillipians 2). If the first move was in fact a subtraction then we can indeed posit a single limitless and all-powerful God whose only potential (inherent in His all-powerful nature) is the ability to choose to be less. That every alternative state is a lesser state. To be a creator is to be less then the all encompassing presence. This would mean that God could only move from a state of highest good to a lesser state by choice. This may also mean what God has emptied He has the power to fill up again. Therefore, though he has chosen limitation he has. not truly relinquished His all powerful condition. “no one can take my life from me, I lay it down willingly and I have the power to take it up again” (paraphrase John 12?).
   By self reduction it creates a distinction which creates time. There was this moment that God was infinite and now this moment that He is limited. The first moment of limitless being with no distinction I would call the eternal moment. It is not that there isn’t time but that there is only one point rendering the nature of time meaningless. Thus in this singular moment of time there may be action. This is what we call an eternal creation (angels) or may exist the Eternal realities. This is the “to be” present tense moment “I AM”. Therefore the first move creates a second or multiple moments by which time is “created” or given meaning apart from the eternal moment. With the limitation of moment to moment there is needed a border of nothing to distinguish this being from that… This moment from that.

I believe that this would be a good place to stop. I hope that these ideas were at least intriguing to one who has stepped into these mysteries. I can’t help but see the crucified Jesus when I think of a creator literally pouring himself out in love to create everything that is. To see God sacrifice himself in love and humility in order that we might exist for relationship with him. The key point is this, is it possible that the first move was subtractive rather than additive?

Thanks for readIng,
Matt Marchand

 

[Anthony_V]

I first learned of the 5 proofs about ten years ago. I admit up front that I have never read Aquinas in its original Latin, nor have I read Aristotle or Plato in Greek. This thread is for thoughts and feedback on the theory below and all of its potentially debatable points. I am not however going to repost what the proofs are but assume you know them with the accompanying familiarity with metaphysics.

1. The first mover implies, necessarily, that it is a limited being.

God’s nature is simply to exist. His nature is existence itself. This is what makes him omnipotent, omniscience etc. We are in his realm, which is all. So for something to exist, it has to be built upon God. His creative power is exercising said power within and of himself-- not to be confused with an idiosyncratic exterior that revolves around pantheism.

1. Each creation is a limitation on the creator.

No. See premise 1.

1. God is a being that creates through self-limitation

Quite the opposite. For every thing created, God is further magnified. The world is literally in the palm of his hand. The universe relies on his nature for existence in a very micro-managed way.

1. God created from nothing not out of nothing.

Again, within the realm of his existence (everything), that which is existing is reflective of his nature. God is effectively a perfectly omnipotent raw material-- existence-- who can will the existence in that he is, into form. Thus, we are made in his image.

1. A limitless first mover is only possible if the first movement is not additive requiring space and time but rather is subtractive thus creating space and time.

See above premises. You’re making this out to be more than it is.

I believe that this would be a good place to stop. I hope that these ideas were at least intriguing to one who has stepped into these mysteries. I can’t help but see the crucified Jesus when I think of a creator literally pouring himself out in love to create everything that is. To see God sacrifice himself in love and humility in order that we might exist for relationship with him. The key point is this, is it possible that the first move was subtractive rather than additive?

Thanks for readIng,
Matt Marchand

The first move was formative.

Basic info on the nature of God:

• All-existent. The necessitous first mover.
• All powerful. Because he is existence and sentient, he can will himself (existence) into form.
• All knowing. Because his dimensions of existence are not limited to our understanding, he is both in principle and actuality, the flow of his creation’s existence without being his creation itself.

 

[empther]

1. God is a being that creates through self-limitation
   Because each creation limits that space that God can be God where tree is being tree distinct from God it means for every created being God is further limited.

God cannot do a self-contradiction.
He can’t make a square circle. He can’t make a rock heavier than he can lift.
He can’t make a second tree occupy the same space as the first because it is the nature of a solid object to occupy a space exclusively and having two objects in the same place is a self-contradiction.

It is no limitation on God that he can’t do the logically impossible.

 

[Alterum]

Just a brief comment on (1): As I recall, the argument from motion is an argument regarding the reduction of potentiality to actuality, not an argument regarding physical (or spatial) motion. So you are not objecting to Thomas Aquinas’ argument.

 

[FirstMover]

To Anthony:
Thanks for your time and response, here are my responses to your arguments.

God’s nature is simply to exist. His nature is existence itself. This is what makes him omnipotent, omniscience etc. We are in his realm, which is all. So for something to exist, it has to be built upon God. His creative power is exercising said power within and of himself-- not to be confused with an idiosyncratic exterior that revolves around pantheism.

I agree that God’s nature is pure existence, he is perfect simple being. I agree that his nature is existence itself, all other things share in that being. I agree we are in his realm. However what does it mean to “build upon God”? If God is Omnipresent and unlimited then where should God build upon himself? What draws the distinction between God and another being vs. just more of God? If he “exercises said power within and of himself” he must create the space and time to do so. This was the point of the whole article. It is not to deny any of these things, but rather to understand that God “Emptied Himself…” so that he could create so that we could love. It is by no means meant to disprove Aquinas, but rather to improve the logic (albeit success is not presumed). However, when we read the Bible the very first line is “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” The very first creation was space… It is not a God building up on himself that I am arguing. I am arguing that he is the fullness of unlimited being and that His first Divine Move was to limit Himself in love for the sake of creation.

Quite the opposite. For every thing created, God is further magnified. The world is literally in the palm of his hand. The universe relies on his nature for existence in a very micro-managed way.

The highest being is already magnified, nothing could increase God, not even His own actions. The only way to go is down from almighty.

Again, within the realm of his existence (everything), that which is existing is reflective of his nature. God is effectively a perfectly omnipotent raw material-- existence-- who can will the existence in that he is, into form. Thus, we are made in his image.

Agreed… but willing yourself into a form is to set limits upon yourself. Thus the self-limited God made us in his own image.

See above premises. You’re making this out to be more than it is.

The first move was formative.

Basic info on the nature of God:

• All-existent. The necessitous first mover.
• All powerful. Because he is existence and sentient, he can will himself (existence) into form.
• All knowing. Because his dimensions of existence are not limited to our understanding, he is both in principle and actuality, the flow of his creation’s existence without being his creation itself.

If the first move was formative, it makes my point. It limits the limitless. This is not a bad thing because God who willingly limits himself has the power to become again unlimited. Jesus said, “No one can take my life from me, I lay it down willingly and I can take it up again.” Let’s not be afraid of God who chose to be weak for the sake of love.

 

[empther]

I am arguing that he is the fullness of unlimited being and that His first Divine Move was to limit Himself in love for the sake of creation.

In examining a sentence, we must first see if it’s grammatically correct. It appears that the above sentence has no grammatical errors.

Next, we must see if the idea of the sentence is correct. To do this we must examine the legitimacry of the phrases.

What does “fullness of unlimited being” mean? Nothing. It’s a redundancy like “large bigness”. It would only make sense if “partialness of unlimited being” was possible.

What does “limit Himself” mean nothing? Nothing. God is infinite. Limited is finite. You can’t go from the infinite to the finite or vice versa.

FirstMover, I don’t know where you got this self-limitiing God idea, but it’s simply wrong. It is also dangerous in that is changes our understanding of God and can lead to other ideas.

But I know you will not change your mind.

 

[FirstMover]

God cannot do a self-contradiction.
He can’t make a square circle. He can’t make a rock heavier than he can lift.
He can’t make a second tree occupy the same space as the first because it is the nature of a solid object to occupy a space exclusively and having two objects in the same place is a self-contradiction.

It is no limitation on God that he can’t do the logically impossible.

I have heard similar arguments and I don’t dispute the core of what you are saying. I am in complete agreement that the second tree cannot occupy the same space as the first! That is my point. Because we are distinct from God, then God must not occupy the same space as that is a contradiction (i.e. we would not be something “Other” but rather part of a pantheistic expanse).

George Carlin used to joke that “If God were all powerful could he create a rock so heavy that even he can’t lift it?” The answer ironically is yes, if we believe that the incarnation of Jesus Christ is True God and True Man. For did he not fall three times under the weight of the cross? Did he not need help carrying something lighter than an average size boulder?

Jesus Christ acknowledged that he can lay down his power and take it up again. It is not illogical that an all powerful being can do that.

 

[FirstMover]

Just a brief comment on (1): As I recall, the argument from motion is an argument regarding the reduction of potentiality to actuality, not an argument regarding physical (or spatial) motion. So you are not objecting to Thomas Aquinas’ argument.

Even so to allow the distinction between potentiality and actuality is to acknowledge two states of being one limiting the other. I am not objecting to Aquinas at all, that is not my intention, I am simply exploring a different interpretation/explanation of the first mover.

 

[FirstMover]

In examining a sentence, we must first see if it’s grammatically correct. It appears that the above sentence has no grammatical errors.

Next, we must see if the idea of the sentence is correct. To do this we must examine the legitimacry of the phrases.

What does “fullness of unlimited being” mean? Nothing. It’s a redundancy like “large bigness”. It would only make sense if “partialness of unlimited being” was possible.

What does “limit Himself” mean nothing? Nothing. God is infinite. Limited is finite. You can’t go from the infinite to the finite or vice versa.

FirstMover, I don’t know where you got this self-limitiing God idea, but it’s simply wrong. It is also dangerous in that is changes our understanding of God and can lead to other ideas.

But I know you will not change your mind.

Philosophy is about loving wisdom and being open to understanding. Explain to me the Incarnation of Jesus Christ, justified with Philippians 2:6-12 if God is not capable of Emptying himself and taking on a form which is in fact a limiter of being. A form allows us to distinguish one being from another meaning that where one stops (a limit) another may begin. I may in the end be wrong, but declaring it without an argument is not helpful. You may also call it dangerous, but nothing I have said has in fact contradicted the Catholic God as we know him but rather ratifies that same God as a loving self-sacrificing being, and loving self-giver.

We are on the same team… I am looking for constructive criticism.

 

[Jaaanosik]

To Anthony:
…
Agreed… but willing yourself into a form is to set limits upon yourself. Thus the self-limited God made us in his own image.
…

We were made in the image of Jesus, His human nature.

Nature is a manifestation of the power of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is where/how God is touching the matter/spacetime.

 

[empther]

I have heard similar arguments and I don’t dispute the core of what you are saying. I am in complete agreement that the second tree cannot occupy the same space as the first! That is my point. Because we are distinct from God, then God must not occupy the same space as that is a contradiction (i.e. we would not be something “Other” but rather part of a pantheistic expanse).

Gos is spirit. He doesn’t occupy space.

George Carlin used to joke that “If God were all powerful could he create a rock so heavy that even he can’t lift it?” The answer ironically is yes, if we believe that the incarnation of Jesus Christ is True God and True Man. For did he not fall three times under the weight of the cross? Did he not need help carrying something lighter than an average size boulder?

The human nature of Jesus, body and soul, were limited, but God is infinite.

 

[Gorgias]

Even so to allow the distinction between potentiality and actuality is to acknowledge two states of being one limiting the other. I am not objecting to Aquinas at all, that is not my intention, I am simply exploring a different interpretation/explanation of the first mover.

How does potentiality limit actuality? If God is a being that is pure actuality, without any potentiality, he is not limited by potentiality.

On the other hand, if other beings exist, who can exhibit potentiality, how does their potentiality impinge on God’s pure actuality?

 

[FirstMover]

We were made in the image of Jesus, His human nature.

Nature is a manifestation of the power of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is where/how God is touching the matter/spacetime.

God is fully human and fully divine. For the divine to be incarnate, truly, he must in fact be self-limited. Philippians 2:6-12. Otherwise St. Paul is wrong in scripture in claiming that “Though he was in the form of God, [Jesus] did not deem equality with God something to be grasped at, rather he emptied himself and took the form of a slave.”

You make my point again when you say that the Holy Spirit is where/how God is touching the matter/spacetime. You are talking about one separated entity, namely God, touching another, namely matter/spacetime. Whatever distinguishes matter/spacetime from God that one may touch the other, is in fact a limitation to both.

 

[FirstMover]

Gos is spirit. He doesn’t occupy space.

The human nature of Jesus, body and soul, were limited, but God is infinite.

Then it is space is a boundary for God, hence a limitation. For any place that God does not occupy he is limited from.

It doesn’t seem logical to say that God is infinite and place a period after it and wash our hands. Because the world we know is full of finite creatures. There can be no room for the finite when there is an infinite being.

To divide out the human nature of Jesus is a form of Docetism. You are arguing that the infinite God only seems to be limited. When in fact God in material form is limited, which means God is not infinite. When we consecrate the Eucharist, do we eat the patten as well. No the True Presence of Jesus Christ, Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity, is limited to the individual hosts.

It is not that God is not all-powerful, that is a separate argument for which I argue that He is. What he has surrendered he can take up again. I also do not believe that God has been anything but the greatest being in His divine power to empty himself and build himself up again.

 

[FirstMover]

How does potentiality limit actuality? If God is a being that is pure actuality, without any potentiality, he is not limited by potentiality.

On the other hand, if other beings exist, who can exhibit potentiality, how does their potentiality impinge on God’s pure actuality?

According to the definitions in W. Norris Clarke S.J. in the “One and the Many” book on Metaphysics:
Potency is that principle within a being which limits (emphasis mine) some act or actual perfection possessed by the being and is the root of its capcity for change.

Passive Potency is the capacity to receive some actual perfection (which means it doesn’t yet have something hence being limited).

Active potency is the power to act, to do something, given the proper conditions. The former (passive potency) implies some incompleteness on its own, hence cannot be found in God. The second (Active Potency) implies no incompleteness or imperfection, hence can be found in God: God has the power (active potency) to create the world or not.

My argument is exactly this. That God, if ever infinite, must have been pure and complete active potency (being!). He pervaded all that is, was all that is, and there were no limits. This Active Potency was in fact the ability to be less, which is the one power the almighty has in potency when He is at the full of exercise of infinite being in complete perfection. Otherwise God would simply be actuality undefined by limits with no potential for change. This would fall in perfect accord would Thomas Aquinas’ understanding that “Act is not limited save by reception into some distinct limiting potency.” (Again from Clarke, Ch. 10 p. 157)

 

[Gorgias]

The second (Active Potency) implies no incompleteness or imperfection, hence can be found in God: God has the power (active potency) to create the world or not.

My argument is exactly this. That God, if ever infinite, must have been pure and complete active potency (being!).

Do you have any references that assert that God has active potency? It’s my understanding that Aquinas asserts that God, being simple and not made of matter, does not have the potency that is implicit in the genus/species relationship, nor the potency inherent in beings composed of matter.

This Active Potency was in fact the ability to be less, which is the one power the almighty has in potency when He is at the full of exercise of infinite being in complete perfection.

Yet, “the power to be less” isn’t something we assert of God. There is no potential for this “less-ness”; nevertheless, this lack of potential does not imply that there is a lack in God. He is, simply, pure actuality.

Otherwise God would simply be actuality undefined by limits with no potential for change.

Umm… this is what Aquinas asserts – God is both infinite and immutable.

 

[Gorgias]

God is fully human and fully divine.

No… the second person of the Trinity – Jesus/Logos is fully human and fully divine.

For the divine to be incarnate, truly, he must in fact be self-limited. Philippians 2:6-12. Otherwise St. Paul is wrong in scripture in claiming that “Though he was in the form of God, [Jesus] did not deem equality with God something to be grasped at, rather he emptied himself and took the form of a slave.”

God is so devoid of limits that, in His second person, he was able to become incarnate – that is, without destroying the immutability of God, Jesus was made human.

You are talking about one separated entity, namely God, touching another, namely matter/spacetime. Whatever distinguishes matter/spacetime from God that one may touch the other, is in fact a limitation to both.

Let’s get down in the muck of dualism, then. If God and matter/spacetime are mutually untouchable, how did God create matter/spacetime in the first place? If there’s a boundary that limits both, then how did God cross that boundary? Moreover, how do you explain His ability to cross that “limiting boundary” interact with matter/spacetime (e.g., in the incarnation of Jesus, in the various instances in which He made himself present within it (angel visits, burning bush, shekinah/glory cloud before the Israelites)?

No – these point to the fact that, from the perspective of God, there is no boundary that prevents God from touching matter/spacetime, and therefore, there is no limitation on God. (However, you may make the case that God’s creatures – those which exist in matter/spacetime – have an inherent limitation at that boundary.)

 

[Gorgias]

We were made in the image of Jesus, His human nature.

Nature is a manifestation of the power of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is where/how God is touching the matter/spacetime.

No… we were made in the image of God. Later, Jesus assumes our human form. The Holy Spirit is where/how God is touching matter/spacetime now (but let’s not forget the Eucharist – that’s another place where God “touches” matter/spacetime!), but in the past there were other ways, as well!

 

[Gorgias]

For any place that God does not occupy he is limited from.

When you say “God”, do you mean “God the first person of the Trinity”?

Question: how does a purely spiritual being, God, “occupy” any “place”?

It doesn’t seem logical to say that God is infinite and place a period after it and wash our hands. Because the world we know is full of finite creatures.

There’s your problem – the world “we know of”, the one “full of finite creatures” is what gives us our knowledge. Since we see only finite creatures, we might make presumptions about the nature of finitude / infinity that don’t hold when applied to God.

There can be no room for the finite when there is an infinite being.

I’m not following you here. You seem to be saying that an infinite being can only create an infinite being? How do you come to that conclusion?

To divide out the human nature of Jesus is a form of Docetism. You are arguing that the infinite God only seems to be limited. When in fact God in material form is limited, which means God is not infinite.

No. Tell me, how is Jesus, “God in material form”, limited?

No the True Presence of Jesus Christ, Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity, is limited to the individual hosts.

No… the Jesus Christ – Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity – is present in the Eucharist, not limited by it.

 

[JDaniel]

1. The first mover implies, necessarily, that it is a limited being.
   Movement requires space and time. But let’s begin with space. In order for there to have been a creation out of nothing then there must be a limitation on the being of God.

FM:

The correct Catholic meaning is: God creates where there was nothing before. How does this jibe with your analysis?

For if “I AM” then nothing would mean “I AM not.” Nothing would be the absence of being. How can being and not being co-exist for the purpose of creation unless there were bounds to this singular instigating being.

Or, unless there were bounds to the place(s) of nothingness, i.e., non-being.

Even for this singular being to move it must have somewhere to move to, whether spatially or from one state to another which it does not yet possess.

For an Infinite Being to move empty space would be required within which It did not already exist. States may become other without spatial movement, although it would require instantaneousness. St. Thomas says, in Commentary on the First Book of the Sentences, dis. 37, q. 4, art. 3:

“Sometimes, however, the term of the change is not remote from the beginning, as in those changes which are from a privation to a form or vice versa, as in generation and corruption, and illumination, and all things of a like nature. Even in these changes, time is involved, since it is evident that matter is not simultaneously under a form and the privation of that form, nor is the air at once subject to darkness and light. However, time is not involved, in the sense that the going forth or the passage from one extreme to the other takes place in time. But to one of the extremes (that one, namely, that is first lost in the change) there is joined a motion or alteration (as in generation and corruption), or the local motion of the sun (as in illumination), and at the term of that motion there is also the term of the change. Yet that change is said to be sudden, or in an instant, for this reason that in the last instant of the time which measured the preceding motion, there is acquired that form or privation of which formerly nothing was present. And in that instant we say that something has been generated, but not properly that it is being generated . . . Consequently, all such instantaneous changes are the terms of some motion.”

For God had the potential to create from all time, but only became the creator when he set the universe in motion. Therefore he was limited by time in order to facilitate this change. Again there must be a distinction between state one and state two and each state is limited by the difference.
[/INDENT]

I do not think so. When we say that “God had the potential to create from all time” we are slaughtering the meaning of that Infinite God, who always created, but not necessarily the universe. Personally, I believe what He created may have been a multi-verse - from all eternity.

1. Each creation is a limitation on the creator.

Perhaps not a “limitation,” per se, as much as a summoning of all of His power - to make to be something where before it there was nothing.

Everywhere something “else” exists that is not God. God Himself is not present. We recognize this in our recognition that pantheism is rejected. Though all things are said to share in God’s own being, those things that distinguish us, are in fact limitations on the space of God’s existence. Where my existence exists, apart from that existence which we share, cannot simultaneously be God unless I am god in which there would be no distinction.

We cannot know these things for certain. Remember, the electron shell of a simple atom is 50 times greater (in magnitude) than its nucleus. How do we know that that empty space is not filled with God, nor even that the exigencies that make up the atom do not consist of God in some way? That He permeates all does not mean “pantheism.”

1. God is a being that creates through self-limitation

Possibly, if even for a brief moment. Although I am not sure how this would be demonstrated.

Because each creation limits that space that God can be God where tree is being tree distinct from God it means for every created being God is further limited.

No. God permeates. Or, perhaps He creates on an implicate level whereas all else that we sense exists at an explicate level.

1. God created from nothing not out of nothing.

Not so. He Created where there was nothing before. That does not mean that He “created from nothing.”

To distinguish one shape from another we need a border. The border that distinguishes our being from God’s being has to be nothing.

Or permeable.

continued . . .