Aquinas, Logic & The First Cause. (Thread 1)

  • Thread starter Thread starter MindOverMatter
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
We live in a fishbowl. Spacetime is our “water”. God has His “being” outside of time and space. God’s revelation to us is by means of words we can understand in order to know Him. These words are woefully inadequate when claiming to prove or disprove His very existence. If one starts using words that relate to time or space, we can stop right there. “Before”, “after”, “from”, “against”, “to” are meaningless because they refer strictly to our limited “fishbowl”.

We can know God through His word and the witness of the Holy Spirit. But that involves using spiritual sensory organs that pick up the “frequency” of God if we choose to listen. But this frequency cannot be found on the electromagnetic spectrum.

“For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known” I Corinthians 13:12

“Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; It is too high, I cannot attain to it.” Psalm 139:6
 
JDaniel said:
40.png
morgantj:
I have not read Thomas Paine’s Age of Reason or had anything to do with it. Anyways, I doubt the bible or anything else would be any “trouble” for an omniscient omnipotent all-powerful deity that is claimed to have created our entire universe. A book curiously targeting a single species of life (humans) would be effortless for such a god. And that doesn’t answer my question, “If the people that wrote the bible were able to get all their information about god without the bible, then why are we unable to without the bible?”
Click to expand...
Why so angry, Morgantj? Why so much hostility? We might look to ourselves if we can’t find Him. Perhaps the flaw is in us? In any event, we theists/deists outnumber you by 10-12 times. Have you ever wondered why? 4 billion to 400 million. Why?

jd
Click to expand...
huh? I didn’t know I was angry. Oh I know why, because I’m not. What are you talking about? Apparently, since you must resort to misdirection ad hominem techniques now, I’ll take that as a you are unable to address my questions or concerns with anything of substance.
 
Please stay on topic, everyone. Take side discussions to new or existing threads. And please remember to be civil. Thank you all.
 
Dear PUNKFORCHRIST,

You hit the nail on the head. This discussion is properly in the context of proving God’s existence, and you define the question of infinite regress in its proper terms. The argument you offer against infinite regress is one given by Aristotle in his Physics and commented upon by St. Thomas in his Commentary on the Physics. It is valid in the order of the philosophy of nature, or (philosophical) physics. I prefer metaphysical arguments and develop them in my book at a later point, using Cajetan’s commentary on the Summa Theologiae. That is another story.

Dear JDaniel,

Your comments are valid enough in the order of space and time, and I shall not take issue with them as such. But the definitions of infinite you use are largely cosmological in nature and fail to address the real issues raised in the Five Ways of St. Thomas. “Infinite,” literally taken from the Latin, means “in” which is a negation, and “finis” which is a limit. Hence the translation, “without limit” is correct. Your concern about the possibility of something being potentially infinite yet not actually so because it is bounded by nothing applies to the natural order of quantitative extension, not the issue at hand, which is the possibility of causal regress without limit in the order of being, a purely metaphysical problem. The Five Ways are metaphysical arguments, not cosmological ones. As such, the question of infinite regress is not about spatial limitations at all, but about whether it is possible in taking prior causes acting here and now to proceed without limit.

My comments about time remain correct. I am well aware that if you measure regression of time from the present and go back without limit, that the duration is limited with respect to the present. Nonetheless, since the temporal regression as a regression knows “no limit,” it is infinite in that respect, but not the prior one. All that this sort of thing demonstrates is that the use of the term, “infinite,” is relative to the context and aspect to which it is applied. A similar solution applies to your other objections.

The relevant metaphysical issues are twofold: (1) Can one regress to infinity in the taking of simultaneously prior (metaphysically prior, NOT temporally prior) causes? … and (2) Does an Infinite Being exist? The latter means what I said before, viz., a Being in which every possible perfection of existence is found without limit, a Being whose very nature is “to be.” It does not refer to any such hypothetical entity as a material substance extended in space without limits or bounds. That last notion has nothing to do with the Infinite Being we call God. The reason pantheists confuse God with His creation lies, in part, in their confusion of the physical order with the metaphysical order. God isn’t just a “bigger being,” but rather Infinite Spiritual Being which causes the entire physical order of being without Himself being a physical thing. Being physical entails inherent limitation in space and time. God preeminently contains the existential perfections expressed in finite physical beings without, at the same time, suffering the limitations inherent in such finite existence.
 
Morganti

“If the people that wrote the bible were able to get all their information about god without the bible, then why are we unable to without the bible?”

It’s true that Einstein had no scientific “bible” to guide him to relativity. Instead, he wrote that “bible” for us. Are we not to read his “bible” and learn from him, or are we to complain that the inspiration he received was not given to all of us?

The sentence you write above seems to be the usual Protestant case for private interpretation, the view that God will reveal to “me” all I need to know, and that I do not need to seek the counsel of others. It’s a good thing that the early Christians repudiated this view by holding fast to the teachings of those who were inspired, the four evangelist and Paul in particular, because they certainly would not know a thing about the teachings of Christ without their writings to consult.
 
JDaniel said:
Because I had these ideas in my mind and wanted to get them written down, I didn’t have time to apologize to you for grabbing onto your comet trail and, hopefully, adding a little something to your excellent analysis of Aquinas’ proof from efficient causality.

:o

jd
Click to expand...
Hey, I* am a convert and hve Aquinas as one of my hero dudes (Saints). I love the fact he was a thinker and one of the Doctors of the Church. Totally AWESOME guy! 🙂 OK, I did get a bit informaql there, but I really do enjoy being Catholic.

Don in Vegas:thumbsup:
 
40.png
Strevel:
Hey, I* am a convert and hve Aquinas as one of my hero dudes (Saints). I love the fact he was a thinker and one of the Doctors of the Church. Totally AWESOME guy! OK, I did get a bit informaql there, but I really do enjoy being Catholic.
Click to expand...
Good to have you aboard! 🙂 By the way, if you’re just getting introduced to Thomas, I would start with his Summa Contra Gentiles, as opposed to the Summa Theologiae. He goes into much more detail in his proofs in the former work.
 
Dr.Bonnette said:
Dear PUNKFORCHRIST,

You hit the nail on the head. This discussion is properly in the context of proving God’s existence, and you define the question of infinite regress in its proper terms. The argument you offer against infinite regress is one given by Aristotle in his Physics and commented upon by St. Thomas in his Commentary on the Physics. It is valid in the order of the philosophy of nature, or (philosophical) physics. I prefer metaphysical arguments and develop them in my book at a later point, using Cajetan’s commentary on the Summa Theologiae. That is another story.
Click to expand...
What’s the name of your book? I’ll be sure to check it out!
 
Dear PUNKFORCHRIST,

You requested the title of my metaphysical book dealing with the problem of infinite causal regress and St. Thomas’ Five Ways.The title is “Aquinas’ Proofs for God’s Existence,” originally published by Martinus-Nijhoff in 1972. It long ago went out of print, but is now being offered by Klewer as a print-on-demand for some rediculous price like $120! Still, you can likely find copies in many libraries if you check around. I have a second book entitled, "Origin of the Human Species, published by Sapientia Press, latest reprinting 2007, which in some ways complements the first book. The first book is a technical commentary on St. Thomas’ Five Ways, largely. The second one deals with evolution and human origins, both philosophically and theologically. You can check that last one out on out on my own website at www.drbonnette.com Thanks for you interest.

Dr. Bonnette
 
This is a long post, but please read it all before commenting.

To all those who have entered this debate, thank-you. And to Doctor Bonnete, I have no problem with the concept of an eternal universe being caused by God. An eternal Universe does nothing to disprove Aquinas. As for everyone else; the main problem I find with all your refutations in regards to an infinite regression (if they can be called that at all) is that they give way to the illusion of plausibility. So far as I can comprehend any of your posts, it seems to me that you are counting backwards from the present moment (positing that moment as zero) as if to count forwards. But the present moment is the sum total of all past events. It is not zero. And if the present moment is the sum total of all past events, then this would imply that the past has a countable number that can be succeeded. I might be interpreting you wrong, and if that’s the case I apologize. But i still think that this is an important thing that needs to be made clear in any case. Some of you have also been describing potential infinites as an actual infinite. This doesn’t make any sense to me either, especially since some of you claim to be doctors of philosophy. There have also been numerous claims that an infinite regress is possible on the authority of Aquinas’s incapability to know. But this is not a refutation or an argument.

It seems to me that this thread has turned into a debate about definitions. So, I will now explain what I mean by an actual infinite in the following paragraph.

“Possibility” implies potentiality in regards to the future. You cannot have a “potentially infinite regress” before the present moment. If you apply an actual infinite to the past, you would have to transcend all descriptive numbers, or simply admit that the past is finite. You cannot have an on-going past that isn’t complete. You may disagree. But what I can say for now is that the past has already occurred; it is already “actual” although it is not a “pure-actuality”. For example, God is pure actuality because he has no succession in time. And that being the case, God is a perfect example an Actual Infinite. But to speak of an actual infinite in respect of time, is to make the claim that all time in all directions have been achieved and exists now in its entirety—eternally. It cannot have any potential in respect of the present moment or in regards to a successive duration; and is therefore a set number of something that simply exists irrespective of time. It is an actual number. To make distinctions such as past, present, and future, is to me a fallacious error in this sense, and can only be implied subjectively in regards to an actually infinite thing. So, to me, to speak of an infinite past is to speak of an actual infinite number of something in its entirety; and to speak of the future is to recognise a potential infinite of something that cannot be exhausted in order to become an actual infinite.

These are the definitions that I work by. If you wish to debate me, then please try to respect them. I understand that you might prefer different definitions; but I do not recognise them. Perhaps we can make a different thread for that, as I do not wish to discuss them here.

Back now to the fallacy of infinite regressions; my argument continues as thus……
 
In-so-far as we are talking about an actual infinite in regards to the past, one can see immediately that there can be no whole or complete number in respect to the past, and therefore, like I said before, we have to transcend all descriptive numbers to such an extent as to make counting meaningless. The reason being, there is no such thing as a number that can describe an infinite. To be more accurate; the past has already occurred, so all numbers have been counted and “exhausted”, in-so-far as the past is concerned, and must be in order that we can reach this present number. But that’s the problem; there is no such thing as “all numbers” and neither can you exhaust any number of events. So the past must be finite. To put this problem another way; the Universe is successively existential, but an actually infinite past cannot possibly be so, since it is always infinite regardless of how many numbers you take away from it. Therefore its infinity and existence has nothing to do with a succession in numbers; which makes no sense in terms of real numbers. But since the real Universe continues to exist by causality of its parts, and its nature of being “infinite”—causally speaking—is said to be the result of the sum total of all the numbers that it contains, then to take even one number away would render it finite. But that would mean that there is a number that completes all numbers; which doesn’t really make any sense. Neither does addition to an actual infinite succeed in being logical, because each number in existence that already exists is said to be apart of what makes the universe infinite. Therefore any addition would only contribute to the transcending or transversing of an actual infinite. This is impossible.

It should immediately occur to you—having conceived of this blatant insult to true infinites—that what one is describing here (infinite regression) is meaningless and impossible. All possible numbers that have already been completed can only be said to be transcendent of time—eternal; since you cannot complete or succeed an infinite by successive addition or regressive addition. This is why I can say that there are only potential infinites in regards to real numbers. A true infinite is not a countable **number **. In fact it is not a number at all and so is therefore not a true **event **. And thus I can also say that it is meaningless to speak of a number that is an infinite series away from this present moment, since such a number can never be reached, and hence the present ought not to exist. If there is an actual infinite past before this moment, then it is impossible for us to have reached this moment, since this moment is in a chain that has an actual infinite number of moments before now. The whole concept of an infinite regress is an absurdity of the highest order. I am greatly saddened that we find it so difficult to grasp this fact.
 
Dear MindOverMatter,

I hate simply to sidestep your reasoning about the possibility of infinite regress into the past, but that question is totally irrelevant to St. Thomas’ Five Ways. The point I tried to make earlier was simply that St. Thomas’ arguments about causal regress utterly prescind from temporal regression. He is talking about causes and effects operating in a causal chain in which all causes operate simultaneously. My point about the possibility of a past with endless duration is that his Third Way assumes the possibility of infinite duration, and argues therefrom. As to the possibility of infinite multitude (not number!), St. Thomas took divers positions, often arguing that such was impossible, but also sometimes saying it is possible! Again, though, this question is utterly irrelevant to his argument to a First Mover Unmoved and a First Cause Uncaused. If you notice in the First Way, he argues that there must be a First Mover because if you take away the First Mover all successive movers are rendered impotent. He is using a different argument here than trying to show something impossible about an infinite regress as such. That is to say, he is not arguing that an infinite regress is impossible, therefore there must be a First Mover. Rather, he is arguing that since there is a First Mover, an infinite regress among intermediate movers is impossible. Read the text. He argues, “… this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and consequently no other mover, seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are moved by the first mover; as the staff moves only becaue it is moved by the hand.” Those of you arguing about St. Thomas’ arguments would do well to read his actual words.

As to your saying that some of us are claiming to be doctors of philosophy, it just so happens that I am – and IN philosophy. (University of Notre Dame, 1970)

Dr. Bonnette
 
MindOverMatter said:
This is a long post, but please read it all before commenting

.

Somewhere I read this reasoning about the first cause. The first cause does not involve infinite regression. There are only three steps. The uncaused being is the first step, the action of causing is the intermediate step, and the caused (universe and us) is the third step. Or – the unity or oneness of creation is observed to be dependent on being caused. Thus, the action of causing unity or oneness within the universe or within nature has to come from outside of universe/nature and therefore from one, unified uncaused being. Note: all of this is taking place outside the limits of created time as it is known in our present universe.
If my memory has messed up – please someone come to my rescue.

Blessings,
granny

All human life is sacred from the first moment of conception.
Click to expand...
 
Dr.Bonnette said:
Dear MindOverMatter,

I hate simply to sidestep your reasoning about the possibility of infinite regress into the past, but that question is totally irrelevant to St. Thomas’ Five Ways.
Click to expand...
I apologize. I get a bit paranoid that people dislike me. You are correct. The problem of an infinite regress is not a problem for Aquinas.
Dr.Bonnette said:
As to the possibility of infinite multitude (not number!)
Click to expand...
To speak of a multitude is to speak of an actual number of something. For instance; 148, is a number that can be used to describe a multitude of singular events that have a causal relationship to one another.
Dr.Bonnette said:
this question is utterly irrelevant to his argument to a First Mover Unmoved and a First Cause Uncaused.
Click to expand...
I now see where your coming from. The purpose of this thread was never about disproving an infinite universe. This thread was actually made in response to people claiming that the universe can come out of nothing. So the thread does assume from the outset that the universe has a beginning, and, using what i know of Aquinas, i set out to disprove this assertion. So it was probably wrong of me for using Aquinas as an authority since i was only using elements of his thinking and reorganizing them to suit my own purpose. It is probably my own fault for not explaining this more fully in the OP. Sorry.
Dr.Bonnette said:
If you notice in the First Way, he argues that there must be a First Mover because if you take away the First Mover all successive movers are rendered impotent.
Click to expand...
Yes.
Dr.Bonnette said:
He is using a different argument here than trying to show something impossible about an infinite regress as such.
Click to expand...
I agree.
Dr.Bonnette said:
That is to say, he is not arguing that an infinite regress is impossible, therefore there must be a First Mover.
Click to expand...
Neither was I, at least not in the original post. In fact if you read the first paragraph of the OP, the implication is that i am trying to refute the idea that something can exist without a cause or come out of nothing. This thread was never really about disproving infinites. It turned into a debate about infinites because Katholish had a problem concerning those atheists who would reject my arguement by stating that there was an infinite regress.
Dr.Bonnette said:
Rather, he is arguing that since there is a First Mover, an infinite regress among intermediate movers is impossible. Read the text. He argues, “… this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and consequently no other mover, seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are moved by the first mover; as the staff moves only because😉 it is moved by the hand.” Those of you arguing about St. Thomas’ arguments would do well to read his actual words.
Click to expand...
What is it about my original post that would lead you into thinking that i don’t know what I’m talking about, or that i was arguing that time cannot be eternal? Its unfortunate that there was confusion, but to be fare i think the OP does express what it is i was trying to prove from the outset. I agree that the title is a bit misleading. You are going to have to forgive me about that.
Dr.Bonnette said:
As to your saying that some of us are claiming to be doctors of philosophy, it just so happens that I am – and IN philosophy. (University of Notre Dame, 1970)

Dr. Bonnette
Click to expand...
Well, you call yourself Doctor Bonnete. Whether or not you are a good philosopher will depend on you addressing and refuting my arguments.🙂 (If you do not want to thats fine; and perhaps we should go to another thread if you do want to?) Thank you for you contribution; it has been very good.👍

Peace.
 
Dear MindOverMatter,

I concur with you that what matters most is not the debate, but the truth it hopefully attains. Argument for its own sake is useless. My aversion to discussing infinite regression in time is that it distracts people from the central argument of St. Thomas, namely, that simultaneous causal regression is impossible. I am familiar with these arguments since I literally wrote the book on them: Aquinas’ Proofs For God’s Existence, 1972. The subtitle was: St. Thomas Aquinas on the per accidens implies the per se. That is the theme running through the Five Ways, namely, that in each Way a central premise is that that which exists per accidens or per aliud (through another) necessarily implies something per se (through itself). This is the premise St. Thomas assumes but does not prove in each of the Five Ways. To him it is a self-evident premise, but one which immediately tells us that a series of secondary causes must imply a first cause (understanding always that these causes must be essentially subordinated, acting simultaneously).

Incidentally, one must be a bit careful about talking about causal regress in terms of numbering causes. St. Thomas actually talks about the problem of “infinite multitude”, not infinite number. That is because you number things only insofar as they belong to the same species or genus. Thus, we cannot count apples and oranges (species), but we can count them as fruit (genus). The problem with causal regress considered precisely as causes is that that makes them identical in concept with being, and you cannot count beings as such, but only insofar as they share a common species or genus. Hence, when causality becomes transcendental, and all that the causes have in common is the fact that they are beings that are causing, numeration becomes impossible. Hence, St. Thomas raises the question of whether infinite temporal causal regress is impossible in terms of whether it entails an impossible infinite multitude, not infinite number. And, as I said before, in some contexts he concludes in the affirmative, others in the negative! But the impossibility of simultaneous infinite causal regress does not depend on that line of reasoning, but on another (too much to deal with here).

If you really want to examine the complexities of these points, I suggest you find a library with my 1972 book in it, since it is still around. And if you still wonder about my credentials (not that authority is any legitimate argument in philosophy, since you are quite right – how good one is as a philosopher is all that counts!), check out my website at www.drbonnette.com and you will see who I am.

Thank you for your intriguing and detailed arguments. Please forgive me for not addressing them more directly, but I really think they distract us from the search for the First Cause hic et nunc (here and now) creating and sustaining the Cosmos.
 
Dr.Bonnette said:
Dear MindOverMatter,

I concur with you that what matters most is not the debate, but the truth it hopefully attains. Argument for its own sake is useless. My aversion to discussing infinite regression in time is that it distracts people from the central argument of St. Thomas, namely, that simultaneous causal regression is impossible. I am familiar with these arguments since I literally wrote the book on them: Aquinas’ Proofs For God’s Existence, 1972. The subtitle was: St. Thomas Aquinas on the per accidens implies the per se. That is the theme running through the Five Ways, namely, that in each Way a central premise is that that which exists per accidens or per aliud (through another) necessarily implies something per se (through itself). This is the premise St. Thomas assumes but does not prove in each of the Five Ways. To him it is a self-evident premise, but one which immediately tells us that a series of secondary causes must imply a first cause (understanding always that these causes must be essentially subordinated, acting simultaneously).

Incidentally, one must be a bit careful about talking about causal regress in terms of numbering causes. St. Thomas actually talks about the problem of “infinite multitude”, not infinite number. That is because you number things only insofar as they belong to the same species or genus. Thus, we cannot count apples and oranges (species), but we can count them as fruit (genus). The problem with causal regress considered precisely as causes is that that makes them identical in concept with being, and you cannot count beings as such, but only insofar as they share a common species or genus. Hence, when causality becomes transcendental, and all that the causes have in common is the fact that they are beings that are causing, numeration becomes impossible. Hence, St. Thomas raises the question of whether infinite temporal causal regress is impossible in terms of whether it entails an impossible infinite multitude, not infinite number. And, as I said before, in some contexts he concludes in the affirmative, others in the negative! But the impossibility of simultaneous infinite causal regress does not depend on that line of reasoning, but on another (too much to deal with here).

If you really want to examine the complexities of these points, I suggest you find a library with my 1972 book in it, since it is still around. And if you still wonder about my credentials (not that authority is any legitimate argument in philosophy, since you are quite right – how good one is as a philosopher is all that counts!), check out my website at www.drbonnette.com and you will see who I am.

Thank you for your intriguing and detailed arguments. Please forgive me for not addressing them more directly, but I really think they distract us from the search for the First Cause hic et nunc (here and now) creating and sustaining the Cosmos.
Click to expand...
Hi Dr Bonnette,

Having studied the Aquinas arguments extensively, do you find any of them in and of themselves to be proof of God’s existence?

Best,
Leela
 
Dear Leela,

You ask: “Having studied the Aquinas arguments extensively, do you find any of them in and of themselves to be proof of God’s existence?”

This is a tricky question to answer. I would not blame anyone reading the Five Ways in the Summa Theologiae not being convinced by them. They are mere summaries of age old arguments St. Thomas was giving to his students. But HIS students were not like students today. These were people already very well formed in philosophy. Before studying theology, students at that time had already worked their way through the Commentary on the Sentences of Peter Lombard, a massive philosophical work. They were already trained philosophers. So, what St. Thomas was doing was merely giving his own little “twists” or versions of these five arguments that originated in Aristotle and had been restated by philosophers down through the centuries.

Do the arguments work? Well, yes, IF you know a lot of philosophy already and know how to elaborate all the detailed twists and turns inherent in these very brief summaries. That is why you need to read a full book explaining the arguments properly, and that means by someone in the TRADITION of Thomism. I say that because outside critics simply do not have the background to explain the proofs properly, and often misconstrue key logical and metaphysical steps. I would recommend especially Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange’s two volume set: God, His Existence, and His Nature. Or, you might try my own Aquinas’ Proofs for God’s Existence. The first two Ways are probably the easiest to grasp and work as a proof, provided you see their force and grasp that they are talking in terms of the metaphysics of being at every turn! The Third Way is most difficult to interpret correctly, and scholars have long debated what exactly St. Thomas MEANT by it! The Fourth Way is decisive, but only if you grasp that it is based on the transcendental nature of being and really resolves into a proof from finite, composite, limited being through causality back to a First Cause. The Fifth Way also works, but you have to understand the nature of finality in metaphysical terms often lacking to most students. Finally, none of them lead to the God of Revelation, but only fulfill the nominal definition of God. That is, he says “…and this is what all men call God,” meaning that what it concludes to IS God, but you have yet to prove that as such – something he does several questions later in the Summa.

Note also that Lagrange spends two thirds of volume one of his work explaining and defending the epistemological and metaphysical validity of the first principles, such as identity, non-contradiction, sufficient reason, causality, and finality, which are presupposed by the Five Ways.

See what a can of worms you have opened?

Dr. Bonnette
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top