Aquinas' Third Proof for God

[thinkandmull]

I guess we need to flesh out what is meant by contingent. To say contingent posist immediately that a necessary thing exists, which is otherwise what is meant to be proved. The world doesn’t have to be there in the sense of a necessity like God would be. But its not strange to ask “why is it not just there”. I am not seeing a contradiction there

 

[thinkandmull]

I’m not sure who you are responding to. I’m not referring to scientific theories.

Aquinas’ premises are all very well supported, but they aren’t in the Summa. You have to study Aristotle’s metaphysics and Aquinas’ other works. The Summa was the equivalent of a graduate-level textbook; it builds upon a ton of material that the reader is assumed to have read and comprehended.

I read the Summa Contra Gentiles. Its good except for the First Book because his arguments makes too many assumptions. But lets try to get down what you mean by contingent

 

[thinkandmull]

Let me say that I don’t believe in everything about Aquinas. I believe with Leibniz that God creates through fulgurations, I agree with Descartes argument for the existence of a personal God, I don’t believe in modern science that says they can know whats behind the big bang temporally, but I am not sure I agree an infinite past is even possible. So I think I believe at least an impersonal Heaven can be proved, then I rely on the argument presented in my thread from the other day. Its as clear as day to me. But Aquinas has a lot of muddle when dealing with philosophy. I think he’s better at theology

 

[Ghosty]

I guess we need to flesh out what is meant by contingent. To say contingent posist immediately that a necessary thing exists, which is otherwise what is meant to be proved. The world doesn’t have to be there in the sense of a necessity like God would be. But its not strange to ask “why is it not just there”. I am not seeing a contradiction there

For something to simply just exist it must “be” in its essence. If a thing’s essence is “to be” then it will not change, nor will it require something else to cause it. If a thing changes then its “being” changes, and that is a contradiction of essential being.

We know that the universe changes, and that means that it can’t have “being” essentially. Since what the universe is changes from moment to moment it has a malleable being, not the stability that comes from “just being”. Since we can observe that the universe exists, but also that it changes and therefore doesn’t have essential being, it must receive its being from something else. That something might also have non-essential being (a multiverse, for example), but ultimately there must be something that “simply is”, that has being in its essence.

Contingent being is simply having existence from something else. Anything that changes is clearly contingent, because if it had essential being it would simply be and not be altered.

Change, when speaking of a nature, is the passing out of being of some aspect of a thing, and the passing into being of some other aspect.

Necessary being is something that exists essentially, and is therefore unchanging because what it is simply is and can’t pass out of existence through change.

 

[thinkandmull]

I’ve never seen a successful argument that God is unchangeable* in every respect*, or that He is existence itself. Aquinas uses “no potency” way out of range without warrant. He simply never proved “no potency in every respect”, which is his basic argument for one thing after another.

But with respect to contingency, I think of John Locke’s argument that you can’t be sure you are using a word in connection with the same concept as someone else. The idea of contingency I do attach to the world; its not necessary, like it MUST exist. But the type of contingency I have in mind doesn’t need a necessary cause, if it always existed. I don’t know if we can communicate further in this regard. There seems to be two ideas you have, necessity in the God sense, and contingency. Maybe the world is in-between those. I do think that the idea we have of God proves his existence. But the Five Ways seem to be *ways *of finding spirituality. I am sorry that the atheists have this spectacle of Catholics debating, but if my thought on contingency would meet yours (without the words) I am not sure who’s would win out. But communication on this has reached a stand still I think.

 

[thinkandmull]

Can you defend the premise that something contingent must have once not existed without a necessary being? That is were the agnostics disagree, but again we are at an impasse about what contingency means. Changeable? But one change is prior to another to infinity it is asserted.

 

[Ghosty]

Can you defend the premise that something contingent must have once not existed without a necessary being? That is were the agnostics disagree, but again we are at an impasse about what contingency means. Changeable? But one change is prior to another to infinity it is asserted.

Something contingent can’t exist without a necessary being by its very definition, because it is contingent on something else. Even if it always existed it is contingent, like a timeless footprint in the sand by a timeless foot. The footprint has no beginning and no end, but it is contingent upon the foot. By its very nature it is an effect, and an effect requires a cause by definition.

To speak of a timeless contingent being with a necessary cause isn’t merely using a slightly different definition, it is a misuse of any normal meaning of contingent.

As for God’s lack of potential, it follows from His necessary being. If something “is” of its essence, it can’t potentially “be” something else. If somethin “is” of its essence, then everything it can be “is” because it is its very nature to be. Potential is something of the essence that lacks actual being, but that is not possible in something that has actual being through its very essence.

As for God being existence itself, that depends on what you understand it to mean. God is existence itself in the sense that He exists essentially, and is the foundation of all being, but not in the sense that He is existence in general.

 

[Partinobodycula]

Something contingent can’t exist without a necessary being by its very definition, because it is contingent on something else.

But how does one overcome the seeming contradiction that the argument from contingency presents to the argument from a first cause. A contradiction which may not at first be apparent, but is there none-the-less. The contradiction is this: If there are indeed certain things that are contingent, meaning that they cannot be true unless something else is also true, like being a twin or a widow for example. Both of which can only be true if something else is also true. In one case that one has/had a sibling, and in the other that one was married, and their husband is deceased. (Although in this day and age this distinction isn’t quite so clear)

In the same manner, if one refers to God as being the first cause, then there must exist an effect. A cause only exists in partnership with an effect. You can’t have one without the other. This means that both cause and effect are equally necessary.

Thus the contradiction, because this means that both the cause and the effect are contingent!!

And it leads to the question, why this particular effect, and not some other effect?

I would posit that a truly omnipotent cause wouldn’t produce just one of an infinite number of possible effects, but would in fact produce them all.

Now I’m certain that you disagree with this argument. But what I would like to know, is where’s the flaw in my reasoning?

 

[Ghosty]

The flaw in your reasoning is that when we say that God is First Cause we are not naming His essence, but His relationship to creation. This relationship is accidental to God’s nature, not essential, and it exists because of the essentially contingent nature of creatures. The essential “property” of God that allows Him to be First Cause in the relationship is His “being in essence”, and this property does not require contingent beings to exist, and therefore is necessary and not contingent.

Aquinas’ arguments for the existence of God start with the created world, show that the created world lacks something that is required for it to exist as we see it does, and then show that there must be something not of creation that causes these aspects of creation. Every argument defines a relationship, not the essence of God, though the “properties” of God’s Nature can be inferred by what creation lacks.

Peace and God bless!

 

[thinkandmull]

Aquinas never proved that the world was contingent in the sense that it needed a necessary cause. All he said was that something in the world can be changed into something else. The conclusion does not follow

 

[thinkandmull]

The fact that things can change in this world is accidentally insignificant it seems to me.

Its not enough to prove there is some absolutely necessary. Not that such a being doesn’t

exist, but it needs to be proven and I don’t think this is the way to do that. Not that the world is necessary in the sense God is, but I don’t see how you can go from something accidental like that fact that matter can be subdivided to the idea of a necessary being. Most famous philosphers have read Aristotle but don’t believe it is the smoking gun about issues. Pope Benedict while still cardinal Ratzinger said he didn’t like the cut and dry aspect of Aquinas, obviously implying that there was far more mystery to God than Aquinas was allowing. If you read the articles on Duns Scotus in the old Catholic Encyclopedia you’ll see that he disagreed with Aquinas whenever he could. I believe when the Bible says God is love it doesn’t mean this in a philosophical sense. God loves, but I don’t think we have to believe He is ontologically love. To say that God is his intellect is to say his knowledge of his decision to create would change his nature. The new knowledge of his choice to create would lodge new knowledge in his mind, and if his mind is himself than he has changed. Instead of answering this with Aquinas that contingent decisions of God and its results are nothing in relation to his necessity, I would just say that God’s goodness is not a static quantity. But this is really arguing about something we can know nothing about. People are free to have their opinions about their God

 

[Ghosty]

Aquinas never proved that the world was contingent in the sense that it needed a necessary cause. All he said was that something in the world can be changed into something else. The conclusion does not follow

Actually, it does follow. If something can change into something else then “being” is not its essence. If “being” is not its essence then it requires something outside its essence to give it being.

Creatures change, therefore they do not have “being” as their essence. This is a logical necessity. The universe changes, therefore “being” is not its essence.

If you have a counter argument that explains how something can have “being” essentially, yet somehow cease to be itself, I’m all ears.

 

[thinkandmull]

“Essentially being” is a concept you have. You have to show it applies to reality.

God can’t change is his essense, that is, cease to be God.

 

[thinkandmull]

Take the example of a door. There are the atoms merged together to form the door. The atoms have a certain shape, activity, and internal components. You can’t prove that there are two principles that have merged (prime matter and form) and that there is something invisible in it called the substance. That is known through faith. People can explain it in paragraph after another, but there is no demonstration of it. As with contingency, I don’t think it can be demonstrated that the door lacks something that requires an infinite perfect being to explain it. The proof of such a God follows other ways, not the Five Ways in my opinion. Your argument amounts to “the door can be divided in two so God exists”.

 

[Ghosty]

“Essentially being” is a concept you have. You have to show it applies to reality.

God can’t change is his essense, that is, cease to be God.

You said that it doesn’t follow that something that can change requires a necessary cause, but my point is that if something can change then being is not its essence. If it is not something’s essence “to be”, then it obviously requires something else in order to make it “be”.

Think about it: if something has being as its own essence, then it is what it is permanently. If it can change then it ceases to be it, and it therefore ceases to be, which is a contradiction in terms. Change is antithetical to being.

Now in the universe things have being and also change, but they can never be and change in the same way at the same time. I can’t be red and change to black at the same time, for example. Now if “being” is not my essence and yet I exist then I must have my being from something else in some way. This is the case for everything in the universe, and the universe itself.

There is nothing within the universe that has “essential being”; it can’t be known except by remotion, in how different it is from things we see. That said, it is demonstrable from the fact that the universe does have being despite also changing, so it must receive this being from something, and even if it is a chain of somethings it must come to something that has being without change, analogically like a chain of lights must eventually be plugged into an outlet if they are to light up. An infinite string of Christmas lights would not give off light unless they received an electrical current.

Now, if you think that something can change while still existing of itself then I’m genuinely curious to hear how.

 

[Ghosty]

Take the example of a door. There are the atoms merged together to form the door. The atoms have a certain shape, activity, and internal components. You can’t prove that there are two principles that have merged (prime matter and form) and that there is something invisible in it called the substance. That is known through faith. People can explain it in paragraph after another, but there is no demonstration of it. As with contingency, I don’t think it can be demonstrated that the door lacks something that requires an infinite perfect being to explain it. The proof of such a God follows other ways, not the Five Ways in my opinion. Your argument amounts to “the door can be divided in two so God exists”.

You can certainly prove that prime matter and form come together to make a door, but first you have to understand what is meant by prime matter and form. They are logical concepts, first and foremost. Prime matter is “maybe”, and form is the identifiable nature that we call “door” in this case. For a door to exist there must be the potential for it to exist (prime matter), and there must be the form of “door”. Substance is perhaps a little murkier, but if two people recognize the commonality of doors enough to speak to each other about opening doors, then they recognize something in common between all these different things and their minds share this common recognition. What they are recognizing is substance, the thing underneath the red paint and particle board in this case, and underneath the black paint and solid oak in that case.

These concepts might be approached differently in different systems, might have different names, but they are logical concepts that are foundational to our experience of of reality and our ability to communicate. One could argue that we are all talking past each other and really mean something different by the word “door”, but common experience contradicts this argument. The fact that we are even attempting to have this conversation is strong evidence against such an assertion.

Peace and God bless!

 

[thinkandmull]

Saying that a door is like another door says nothing about an invisible reality (substance). I would like however to see the proof that there are two principles involved to make the door, instead of just its matter coming into existence. As for the Third Way (which is just a reformulation of the first two ways), I don’t see how it necessarily follows there must be a God just because you can paint a chair. Finally, God changed in a sense when he assumed the humanity of the son.

I recommend you read Rene Descartes Third Meditation.

 

[thinkandmull]

This is an interesting discussion to say the least though

 

[thinkandmull]

The agnostic readers (who I wish would say something about whether you are being convincing to them) of this forum are maybe thinking that form-substance-contingency are all “in the eye of the beholder”. How are you going to argue that this is not so?

 

[Ghosty]

The agnostic readers (who I wish would say something about whether you are being convincing to them) of this forum are maybe thinking that form-substance-contingency are all “in the eye of the beholder”. How are you going to argue that this is not so?

I’d have to know specifically what the objection was in order to answer. Form and substance refer to things that are commonly understood by definition. If they were only in the eye of the beholder it would be impossible to speak to eachother.

Contingency is likewise something that is understood with the concept of cause and effect, or if/then statements. It is a logical formula that is shared by all who can communicate with others.