Aquinas & The Trinitarian God

[Sunflower15]

What does it mean for a first mover to cause something?

One of Aquinas classic proofs for the existence of God: The 1st classic proof: FIRST MOVER:
Some things are in motion, anything moved is moved by another, and there can’t be an infinite series of movers, eventually we get to that FIRST moving thing, which is NOT moved by another.
So, there must be a first mover (a mover that isn’t itself moved by another). This is
God.
Then, this First or Prime Mover EXISTS in and of itself…without needing anything else…which means that IT also must SUSTAIN itself in existence…since it needs nothing else to move. This eliminates chance…which would just as quickly disappear out of existence as it was brought about…not consistently sustaining itself!

From this Prime Mover, all else is moved…and sustained in existence…which creates a strong case for ‘caring’ or a ‘personal’ God rather than one who ‘moves’ and then disregards…for if for a single instance in Time, God forgot a spec of dust, it would cease to exist!

I’m VERY rusty, but I think in a nutshell, this is the 1st classic proof of Aquinas - the Prime Mover…

 

[Sunflower15]

I will give you a clue.

A first mover is a necessary being. Try and work it out.

Great clue!
God is the ONLY necessary Being, all else is Contingent, meaning we are all Contingent upon the ONE Necessary Being, which/who is NOT Contingent upon anything else!

God is Necessary and Sufficient! [nothing else is really needed]

I just want to see how we get to the Trinitarian God from any of these proofs, though!

 

[Sunflower15]

Okay, I’ll bite.

So these general principles that can be deduced to give us guidelines on how best to live our lives… they sound a lot like moral principles. Do these general priciples that can be deduced constantly change?

peace,
Michael

Not the basic ones…
all cultures believe that murder, raping, kidnapping and stealing is wrong…
It is ingrained into the nature of Man to find these things wrong…Catholics call it Natural Law, others simply call it Morality…
The Asian philosophies of life are very good examples of these teachings, it is extremely difficult to argue against them! Read Confucius, for example…

 

[Cecilianus]

I will give you a clue.

A first mover is a necessary being. Try and work it out.

1. How do you know that the first mover is a necessary being?
2. So it is necessary (for the sake of argument), and it somehow causes other things which are not necessary - yet those “other things” seem to be explicable through natural causes alone back in time to the Big Bang. I’m not very enlightened by this, I’m afraid.

 

[Cecilianus]

One of Aquinas classic proofs for the existence of God: The 1st classic proof: FIRST MOVER:

…]

So, there must be a first mover (a mover that isn’t itself moved by another). This is
God.

How do you know it’s God? I’m not “moved by God” everytime I do something, like lift my arm or any other action. I’m moving myself. You’ve only proven that there is something in me where “the buck stops” in the chain of causality - I call that my soul.

Then, this First or Prime Mover EXISTS in and of itself…without needing anything else…which means that IT also must SUSTAIN itself in existence…since it needs nothing else to move. This eliminates chance…which would just as quickly disappear out of existence as it was brought about…not consistently sustaining itself!

Well, I never understood it to begin with in a way that made half a bit of sense, but there are the reasons why I don’t believe in any such “Prime Mover”.

 

[Shike]

Not the basic ones…
all cultures believe that murder, raping, kidnapping and stealing is wrong…
It is ingrained into the nature of Man to find these things wrong…Catholics call it Natural Law, others simply call it Morality…
The Asian philosophies of life are very good examples of these teachings, it is extremely difficult to argue against them! Read Confucius, for example…

Yes.

Side note: my response was somewhat leading and perhaps even a bit sarcastic or smug. But I do appreciate a straight forward comment.

 

[Shike]

How do you know it’s God? I’m not “moved by God” everytime I do something, like lift my arm or any other action. I’m moving myself. You’ve only proven that there is something in me where “the buck stops” in the chain of causality - I call that my soul.

If I may add, it is important to qualify the word causality that is being thrown around. It would be best to understand causality in the Prime Mover argument/way as efficient causality, not cause/effect events that we would normally think of–this is where many misunderstandings arise.

It may be possible to have an infinite chain of events (hypothetically), but it isn’t possible to have an infinite chain of efficient causes. For instance, think of the laws of physics that are essential to our very existence right at this exact moment.

 

[Shike]

A spec of dust continues to exist because it’s the nature of matter to keep existing.

And why would it be its nature to keep existing? Think efficient causality.

 

[Cecilianus]

If I may add, it is important to qualify the word causality that is being thrown around. It would be best to understand causality in the Prime Mover argument/way as efficient causality, not cause/effect events that we would normally think of–this is where many misunderstandings arise.

I thought that’s what efficient causality was (cause/effect events that we would normally think of).

 

[Shike]

I thought that’s what efficient causality was (cause/effect events that we would normally think of).

Well, however it came out, what I was trying to get across was this:
some people take causality in Aquinas’ ways as not efficient causality. For example, one might wrongly think of a human child and his parents. After the child is born, his existence is no longer dependent on his parents (food and nurturing aspects aside, of course).

The chain of causality that Aquinas talks about is one of efficient causality, where the cause cannot just be removed, ie the laws of physics and our existence at this very moment.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Well, I never understood it to begin with in a way that made half a bit of sense, but there are the reasons why I don’t believe in any such “Prime Mover”.

An efficent primemover is a mover that explains why there is such a thing as potential motion.

 

[Sunflower15]

I just wanted to mention that my 7th grader came home from school [after the second day] and showed me his religion textbook had the 5 classic proofs of Aquinas [though it actually said Aristotle, and then explained Aquinas used Aristotle’s basic arguments].

I was impressed that they introduced these concepts to 7th graders, though in an extremely simplified version, of course!

Later, when we were in the car, I asked if he remembered at least the names/basic concepts and he did!