Another Arguement For The Existence Of A Timeless Cuase

[ReapReason]

RR:

I’ve heard this assertion before, and would like to read it for myself. The Summa Theologica, Vol I, Q 7 is all about Infinity. St. Thomas does make mention of the possibility of numerical and material infinity, but only under the second form of it, that is: potential infinity. If you understand what “potential” means, in this regard, you will see that it means: possible. Now, possible, i.e., potential is not the same as actual, as St. Thomas indicates in his Commentary on the Physics, Bk. III, les. 11, n. 743: “In the second place, there is the potential infinite, which is that to which there is always something beyond.”
For St. Thomas, there can be no actual infinity numerically or materially. There can only be the possibility of infinity.

The words, aleph and aleph null, are often used to represent infinity or an infinitesimal. As one can see, neither of these words represents a specific difference on a number line, in either direction. They are words representing abstractions that best describe the possible answers to some mathematical equations. You and I both have some idea of what a trillion is, but we have no idea of what an aleph is. Neither does anyone else.

God bless,
jd

Potentiality cannot exist without an unmoved mover, but that is not the same thing as saying that a series of realised potentiality cannot exist without a first time-event.

Aquinas proves the existence of a cause lying completely outside the series of potential events.

He is not arguing for a cause from which time extends finitely.

Aquinas holds that reason cannot prove that the world had a beginning in time.

fordham.edu/halsall/basis/aquinas-eternity.asp

 

[JDaniel]

Potentiality cannot exist without an unmoved mover, but that is not the same thing as saying that a series of realised potentiality cannot exist without a first time-event.

RR:

No, that’s not what Aquinas means by “potentiality,” in this usage. He’s not talking about “potency,” the noun. He’s talking about “potentiality,” the attributive adjective.

Both words derive from posse, but in modern times, the essential meanings have been confused. By the first meaning, Aquinas meant that a thing in potency was a thing enroute to act. Also, in this meaning, potency is possessed, as a hole would possess, for example, emptiness. By potentiality is meant that something has (in the loosest sense of that word) the possibility to be, or receive, any one (or more) of many possibilities.

You’ve got to grasp the difference or you’ll find yourself confused.

God bless,
jd

 

[ReapReason]

RR:

No, that’s not what Aquinas means by “potentiality,” in this usage. He’s not talking about “potency,” the noun. He’s talking about “potentiality,” the attributive adjective.

Both words derive from posse, but in modern times, the essential meanings have been confused. By the first meaning, Aquinas meant that a thing in potency was a thing enroute to act. Also, in this meaning, potency is possessed, as a hole would possess, for example, emptiness. By potentiality is meant that something has (in the loosest sense of that word) the possibility to be, or receive, any one (or more) of many possibilities.

You’ve got to grasp the difference or you’ll find yourself confused.

God bless,
jd

It really does not matter. Potentially can mean what a thing is becoming or it could mean simply an unrealised possibility.

Ultimately Aquinas is arguing that the potentiality for change cannot become actual without that which can give actuality to potential. Hence the term unmoved mover.

He is not arguing that there cannot be an infinite regress of potential beings or that there must be a beginning in time or a first event before which there is no events. That is the kalam cosmological argument, not Aquinas’ Argument. Aquinas is arguing that a thing cannot become actual with out that which is pure actuality itself.

 

[JDaniel]

It really does not matter. Potentially can mean what a thing is becoming or it could mean simply an unrealised possibility.

Ultimately Aquinas is arguing that the potentiality for change cannot become actual without that which can give actuality to potential. Hence the term unmoved mover.

He is not arguing that there cannot be an infinite regress of potential beings or that there must be a beginning in time or a first event before which there is no events. That is the kalam cosmological argument, not Aquinas’ Argument. Aquinas is arguing that a thing cannot become actual with out that which is pure actuality itself.

RR:

Aquinas is arguing that there are 4 real causes. The first one is Primary Matter, which is not only potential but is pure potency. In contrast to secondary matter, primary matter is purely passive. Apart from its union with substantial form, it has no act of its own. The only act that it has is the act conferred on it by form. It is a pure or primary subject; of itself it has no actual attributes. St. Thomas thought of it as a kind of chaos, organized by form. OTOH, secondary matter is always in some way in act. And, OTOH, secondary matter is also a thing, whereas primary matter and form are principles.

The second cause is Form. Now, Form is to Matter as Sight is to the Eye. As just said, primary matter and form are each principles by which a something, which is their composite, actually exists. According to Aristotle, form is like a habit. It is the habit of, for example, geometry. Just as the habit gives a distinctive character to actions of which it is the principle, so form gives a determinate character to primary matter.

The third cause is agency (the efficient cause). Since neither primary matter nor form have act, i.e., actual existence until they are composed, there must be something that is actually in act that educes the form and matter composition.

And the fourth cause is the end, or purpose, of the action of composing the primary matter and form in substantial change. Substantial change is precisely what Aquinas has been talking about. You should be able to see that “unrealized possibility” means “principle.” “Principle” means anything from which something else flows.

As to your last paragraph, he actually is, in the following sense:. for Aquinas, there is no such thing as “potential beings.” If primary matter and form are first principles, the term “being,” in all of its meaning, cannot apply.

God bless,
jd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

You gave a criticism, and i showed you why that criticism was a misunderstanding of what i said and corrected it. You have not replied to my comment. You are simply asserting that my words are garbled. You are not even trying to understand what i am saying.

In my opinion i don’t think you have any real intention of understanding the argument in the first place.

Perhaps in the end I may be wrong. Whatever the case I want you to know I have tried to understand your argument. If you are wrong you certainly wouldn’t be the first person who has been wrong. St. Anselm thought he had a great argument but it appears he was wrong. I am wrong on something every day. Those who make errors are not bad or even stupid, we just error in our reasoning process. I liked your conclusion but just couldn’t
see how you got there.