Aquinas's Five definitions of God

[greylorn]

Fine. Monday is bad enough. Let’s not add to it. I hope you don’t do this again, to me or anyone here.

If you want anyone to believe you, let your words speak for themselves. Having a condescending attitude sends you into outer space with nobody to talk to. It gets lonely quickly.

I’m a doctor, BTW, so that’s at least one thing you got wrong. When one postulate is wrong, all hell breaks loose…

M.D., or just a Ph.D? Specialty? None of my business of course, but it is so much easier to converse with someone whose background is kind of known. I can talk up or down, and prefer to talk evenly.

Don’t get offended by the “just,” above. I’ve worked with and been taught by several dozen Ph.Ds in various scientific fields. Some were awesome, brilliant people; and some were arrogant dolts who could not find their way out of a wet paper bag with holes on both ends. No quality guarantees come with the diploma. I’ve had very close relationships with several Ph.Ds. I’m inclined to give hard science people the benefit of initial high respect, but have found philosophers and sociologists to be of little conversational value. They have a tendency to be thin-skinned, pretentious, and hold their acquired book learning as if it was absolute truth, whereas the good hard-science types are more fun to converse with.

Not worried about getting lonely. Life cannot get any lonelier that it already is.

 

[norain]

M.D., or just a Ph.D? Specialty? None of my business of course, but it is so much easier to converse with someone whose background is kind of known. I can talk up or down, and prefer to talk evenly.

I’m an MD specialist. No need to throw that around here, though. I don’t like being called “doc” when the person is not my patient…

Did extremely well in college physics. Medicine is more about swallowing facts and spitting it out. Sometimes I wish I majored in math or physics instead of doing a biology-intensive pre-med.

I can pretty much follow discussions on theory as long as we leave out the math.

I also do commercial-level dotnet programming on the side.

I find it extremely curious that people of all levels of intelligence cannot seem to agree on basic philosophy.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Without resorting to a lengthy logical proof, if you define God to be that which is omnipotent, I think it can be proven that all five statements refer to only one entity.

There certainly was no doubt about it in Thomas’ mind. As : the pure actuality of the Unmoved Mover can only be the God of Revelation, likewise the First Cause, The Necessary Being, The First Being, and the Being who Orders all in creation ( all the last four can also be reduced to pure actuality as well). And there can be only one Actus Purus and that is the God of Revelation.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

May I offer a few comments? Some are forgetting the key to the first way. It is precisely this. Thomas says "…whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that toward which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves in as much as it is in act.

This means that " …a certain potentiallity is actualized by something whose potentiality is itself actualized by something whose potentiality is itself actualized by ( something whose potentiality is actualized by, etc ) and so on…such a series can only possibly terminate in something which is not reduced to act or actualized by anything else, but which just isin act or actual and thus " unmoving "…Eventually this regress must terminate in something which here and now actualizes potentialities without itself being actualized, an unmoved mover. " ( Edward Feser, in Aquinas, pg 73)

So the Unmoved Mover ( Aristotle’s Prime Mover as interpreted by Aquinas) is Actus Purus or pure actuality having no potentiality whatsoever. Such a being, a Pure Actuality is immediately recognized by Christians as God.

Several things must be seen about such an Acutality. First, it must be outside the ontological members of the series since it is a pure actuality having no potentiality whereas the members of the series are all beings composed of actuality and potentiality.

Secondly such a series could actually be eternal since the Unmoved Mover itself is outside the series ontologically. One of our posters objected that an Unmoved Mover would not be required if the series was eternal. This answers that objection. It must be remembered that Thomas designed the proof to account for the possibility of an eternal universe. His proof shows that even if the universe is eternal an Unmoved Mover is required. What most people forget is that the Unmoved Mover is ontologically outside the series. Thomas could have made this more clear but he does explain himself in other places. However it is clear from the argument he gave if you think about it thoroughly.

Now it can be shown that all the proofs conclude in a First Something which can indeed be reduced to a Pure Actuality and thus can be identified easily as the Christian God. Thomas will go on in Book 1, Question 3 and following to analyize the nature of the Unmoved Mover, etc. or God. He will show that the First Being, God, has all the characteristics of the Christian God, including Intelligence, Will, Justice, Love, Goodness, Mercy, Personhood, etc. is Omnipotent, Omnescient, Omnipresent and, the creator, maintainer, and orderer of all that exists.

Hope this helps.

 

[Candide_West]

Now it can be shown that all the proofs conclude in a First Something which can indeed be reduced to a Pure Actuality and thus can be identified easily as the Christian God.*:

Great, could you demonstrate HOW it can be shown then please. If you can do that then I think you’ll have answered the question in the OP.*

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Originally Posted by Linusthe2nd
Now it can be shown that all the proofs conclude in a First Something which can indeed be reduced to a Pure Actuality and thus can be identified easily as the Christian God.*:

Great, could you demonstrate HOW it can be shown then please. If you can do that then I think you’ll have answered the question in the

Which part of this conclusion do you mean? The first, second, or third part? The proof concludes in an Unmoved Mover which is pure actuality having no potentiality whatsoever and is thus Unmoveable. To the Christians of his day that was all Thomas had to say. They immediately recognized that such a Being contained all perfections possible to the greatest degree possible because a Being of pure actuality necessairly was the absolute source and cause of all that is and of every movement and/or change and the final end or purpose of everything and that there could only be one such Being. They had been taught this all their lives. So Thomas said " … and this all call God."

I did point out in the larger post that Thomas could have given a more full explanation immediately. To be fair however, he has shown this in the Summa Contra Gentiles, an earlier work which all his students would have been familiar with and in other earlier works, so his students would have been familiar with many of his reasons already.

Also to be fair, Thomas does draw this out in Question 3 and the Questions which follow. At this point however it is not intended as a complete statement about which nothing more could be or needed to be said. If you will sit down and read Questions 3 through 11 on the nature of God, then on to Questions 12 and 13, on knowing and naming God ( where you see that God cannot be ’ hairy or smell ’ ), and then to Questions 14-18 on Knowledge in God, and to Questions 19-26 on Will and Power in God, and on to Questions 27-32 on the Trinity which also discusses Personhood in God , you will see how all this is true according to Thomas.

A bit of work but worth it. Even if you disagree with it all you will be reading one of the greatest intellects the world has produced and you cannot possibly not learn nothing worth while.

Now, I do not deny that even some Catholic philosophers disagree with one or more of Thomas’ proofs. This does not prove any proof is wrong. It just shows that not everyone can see it. But that is true of any system of knowledge and more true as that system gets more and more difficult.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Some where in this thread or on similar someone asked if the Five Ways or at least the First or perhaps the Second depended on the state of science as understood in Thomas’ day. The answer is no for we fine in Ia 32,1, Reply to objection 2

Reason may be employed in two ways to establish a point: firstly, for the purpose of furnishing sufficient proof of some principle, as in natural science, where sufficient proof can be brought to show that the movement of the heavens is always of uniform velocity. Reason is employed in another way, not as furnishing a sufficient proof of a principle, but as confirming an already established principle, by showing the congruity of its results, as in astrology the theory of eccentrics and epicycles is considered as established, because thereby the sensible appearances of the heavenly movements can be explained; not, however, as if this proof were sufficient…

On pg 39 of Aquinas, Freser quotes from Rickaby at pg 67 of his Scholasticism; cf. ST I 32.1 " …As Aquinas himself says with respect to the Ptolemaic astronomy accepted in his day, " the suppositions that these astronomers have invented need not necessarily be true; for perhaps the phenomena of the stars are explicable on some other plan not yet discovered by men…" I don’t know where this exact quote came from but it was not from ST 32,1. However, ST 32, 1 comes close to saying the same thing. In any event, it is clear that Thomas would never make the mistake of basing his proofs on " facts " which may not be true a little futher in the future.

 

[Candide_West]

Originally Posted by Linusthe2nd *
Now it can be shown that all the proofs conclude in a First Something which can indeed be reduced to a Pure Actuality and thus can be identified easily as the Christian God.

Which part of this conclusion do you mean? The first, second, or third part?*

The first part (I think) - that all the five ways can be shown to conclude in a “first something”.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

The first part (I think) - that all the five ways can be shown to conclude in a “first something”.

I already did in posts 117 and 119. The First Unmoved Mover is pure actuality.

Also :

Please note. The Prime Mover is Pure Actuality. In our material universe there is no such entity, all beings of our universe are composed of matter and form, or essences which are composed of matter and form which exist. It exists in another " world. "

The kind of movement/change Aquinas is talking about in the First Way is simultaneous. All the movers and the moved are acting and receiving this instant. Such a series must of necessity end with a First Unmoved Mover who is Unmoved because It is Pure Actuality and because it is Pure Actuality it cannot be Moved or Changed, because it has no " passive " potency, it cannot ever have been nor shall ever be but what it is - Pure Act - a Being which just Is - a Being of Pure Existence, a Being we can scarcely imagine.

Such a Being is not simply the motion/change or our series, it is Outside the series causing the movement, It is not a part of the chain. In a sense It is causing the motion/chainge not only " at a distance " but from a different plane of reality altogether, from a " world " where there is no and can be no time. The fact that it moves other beings implies no change in itself ; for, as pure act, it cannot change. It moves others by Will. That is something we cannot understand but it is a necessary conclusion.

And by the way, a Pure Actuality is necessarily self subsistant, owing its existence to no other, necessarily limitless and boundless in Existence, the source of all the movement/change, beings, perfections existing in them, the efficient, formal, and final cause of all that exists and the Intellect and Will that accomplishes all and directs all in the universe.

The simplest way to look at it is this. A Pure Actuality is Pure Existence and as such is Perfect in Being. Being absolutely perfect in existence or being is to contain or be identical to the absolutely perfect in every way that any being can exist.

Thus the First Cause would also be identical to the Pure Actuality of the Prime Mover. and the one Necessary Being is also the Pure Actuality of the Prime Mover, and the First Being is obviously Pure Existence or Pure Actuality, and the Supreme Planer and Orderer being Supreme in Intellect and Will would also be identified with the Pure Actuality or Pure Existence. Thus, all Five Ways conclude to the One Pure Actuality, the First Supreme Being. But the conclusion of each of the Five Ways concludes in an absolutely Supreme Being or Actuality in some Order and all Christians would call this God since any of these characteristics they identify with characteristics of their God.

 

[Candide_West]

I already did in posts 117 and 119. The First Unmoved Mover is pure actuality.

Hmmm, well perhaps you’d be kind enough to repeat your argument? Perhaps breaking it down into numbered premises for clarity? Because I’ve read over and over those posts and I can’t see your argument anywhere.

As far as I can see post 117 you simply asserted that it could be shown without providing your argument. And in 119 you seem (like Aquinas) to simply rename the unmoved mover as God and say that this is what Christians thought anyway. I’m sure they did think this, but that doesn’t represent an argument, let alone a proof that all the five ways refer to a single thing.

I assume I’m just missing something?*

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Hmmm, well perhaps you’d be kind enough to repeat your argument? Perhaps breaking it down into numbered premises for clarity? Because I’ve read over and over those posts and I can’t see your argument anywhere.

As far as I can see post 117 you simply asserted that it could be shown without providing your argument. And in 119 you seem (like Aquinas) to simply rename the unmoved mover as God and say that this is what Christians thought anyway. I’m sure they did think this, but that doesn’t represent an argument, let alone a proof that all the five ways refer to a single thing.

I assume I’m just missing something?*

If you can’t see it, you can’t see it. As I said before many even among his own confrers couldn’t see it. That doesn’t disprove it. The Church and Christianity survived for 1,200 years without him and will continue to survive to the end ( God’s word on that).

 

[Candide_West]

If you can’t see it, you can’t see it. As I said before many even among his own confrers couldn’t see it. That doesn’t disprove it.*

Er… Ok, but you said*

“it can be shown that all the proofs conclude in a First Something”

Which is exactly what the OP question is seeking. But as far as I can tell you haven’t actually shown this, you’ve asserted that it CAN be shown, but show no sign of wanting to actually show it, which makes your assertion a little pointless.*

Again, would you like to show how this can be shown please? Otherwise the question remains unanswered. Which would be a shame if you can actually answer it.

 

[norain]

Er… Ok, but you said*

“it can be shown that all the proofs conclude in a First Something”

Which is exactly what the OP question is seeking. But as far as I can tell you haven’t actually shown this, you’ve asserted that it CAN be shown, but show no sign of wanting to actually show it, which makes your assertion a little pointless.*

Again, would you like to show how this can be shown please? Otherwise the question remains unanswered. Which would be a shame if you can actually answer it.

My experience with questions like these is that the one asking has no intention of being proven wrong. He/she has already made up his mind. People reject logical arguments without putting forth why they reject it.

I’ll do it later, if you insist. When I have a bit of free time.

 

[Candide_West]

My experience with questions like these is that the one asking has no intention of being proven wrong. He/she has already made up his mind. People reject logical arguments without putting forth why they reject it.*

I’ll do it later, if you insist. When I have a bit of free time.

Well I’m in the advantageous position here of not holding a position to prove right or wrong. I’ve never seen this argument demonstrated. Thats a fact. If someone can do it, ok cool, let’s see.*

As yet I’ve not been offered a logical argument to reject or accept. I’ve raised this question a number of times in the past and the replies I’ve had so were things like “well what else could it refer to” or “it’s just obvious isn’t it?” or (like Aquinas) "everyone calls the subject if each way ‘God’ ". Etc.*

I look forward to hearing from you soon.*

 

[norain]

Candide,

I think once you postulate the first to be true, everything else follows.

Assume entity A is God, the prime mover.
B is the efficient cause.
C is the necessary being.
D the ideal.
E the governor.

B cannot do anything without A moving it first to actuality as the efficient cause.
C cannot make anything without A moving it first to actuality as the maker.
B requires A, making A essentially the efficient cause.
C requires A, making A in essence the maker.
So now A satisfies A, B, C.

C makes everything. So everything is a subset of C, making C the same as the perfect/ideal D from which everything comes.
Since A moves C to actuality, the perfection in D is again bound to A.

E, the intelligent governor is easy. If A moves everything, then it also governs everything.

Basically, B, C, D and E cannot do anything without A, so they are all operationally bound to A, and might as well be A.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Er… Ok, but you said*

“it can be shown that all the proofs conclude in a First Something”

Which is exactly what the OP question is seeking. But as far as I can tell you haven’t actually shown this, you’ve asserted that it CAN be shown, but show no sign of wanting to actually show it, which makes your assertion a little pointless.*

Again, would you like to show how this can be shown please? Otherwise the question remains unanswered. Which would be a shame if you can actually answer it.

No Candide, it only remains unanswered to you because you either cannot see the answer or you choose not to see it. That does not mean the answer is not there. I also, in earlier posts asked you to read Thomas for yourself. If you did that and still cannot see the answer then , along with others, it is one of those things you just cannot understand. That is no fault, there are lots of things in science and mathematics I don’t understand. I flunked Calculus and Chemistry - they just didn’t make any sense to me.

So, the fact that one doesn’t understand something doesn’t mean that that " something " is not true. Pax!!

 

[norain]

I just realized something. I said entities B, C, D and E are all bound to A.

By the definitions, A, C, D and E are also bound to B,
A, B, D and E are all bound to C,
and so forth.

So they are functionally one, each dependent on the rest.
Which means they are necessarily one.

 

[Candide_West]

Candide,

I think once you postulate the first to be true, everything else follows.*

Hmm, not sure what you mean by this, but just to be clear, for the sake of discussion I’m ignoring the problems with each of the five ways individually (they’re well known and have been discussed extensively elsewhere so I’m ignoring them and assuming that each of the five ways individually show what they attempt to).*

Assume entity A is God, the prime mover.

Let’s avoid re-naming things “God” since that tends to lead to confusion. So let’s call A the prime mover.

B is the efficient cause.
C is the necessary being.
D the ideal.
E the governor.

Ok.

B cannot do anything without A moving it first to actuality as the efficient cause.

Why does B need to be moved to be efficient cause? What I understand there is no reason why cause cannot be timeless, and therefore not require to be moved to actuality as an efficient cause.*

C cannot make anything without A moving it first to actuality as the maker.

Why does C needed to be moved? My understanding (please correct me if I’m wrong) is that C is the act of existence. There doesn’t seem to be any need for A to move it to actuality.

B requires A, making A essentially the efficient cause.
C requires A, making A in essence the maker.
So now A satisfies A, B, C.

If we for the moment ignore the issues above then. You haven’t actually demonstrated that A, B and C refer to a single entity, what you have shown is that B and C require A (which is a logical problem in itself since C is the necessary thing and as such cannot be dependent on anything else).

So alternatively they could be three separate things which exist timelessly.*

C makes everything. So everything is a subset of C,*

I’m afraid this doesn’t follow. Indeed it would be against Christian doctrine since it would mean that everything is a part of the “necessary thing” (pantheistic).

making C the same as the perfect/ideal D from which everything comes.

Even if we accept the rather problematic statement above that everything is part of the necessary thing then all that we could say from this is that any perfect thing that exists is a part of the necessary thing (along with all the other imperfect things that exist). We cannot say that the whole is perfect, indeed this would be problematic in its own right given the statement above.*

E, the intelligent governor is easy. If A moves everything, then it also governs everything.

But the sense of “governs” you’ve used there implies no more intelligence on the part of A than saying that the wind “governs” the movement of leaves in autumn. It is the cause of their movement but this does not show any purpose or intellect in its action. Thus far we have no reason to conclude that A (the PM), or the conclusion of any of the other ways has intellect.*

Basically, B, C, D and E cannot do anything without A, so they are all operationally bound to A, and might as well be A.

The other alternative which your argument above has not addressed is that B - E are separate things which could all be timeless things (although it’s worth noting the D and E are not necessarily timeless and as such could have come along after A).

Therefore*at present we can say that B - E MIGHT be the same as A but we cannot say that they MUST be A.

 

[Candide_West]

No Candide, it only remains unanswered to you because you either cannot see the answer or you choose not to see it.*

You are correct, I cannot see it. I strongly suspect that the reason I cannot see it is because you haven’t actually written it. And each time I repeat my request and you decline to provide a clear argument supporting your assertion you reinforce this suspicion.*

So, how about one more time? Please can you show that all the five ways refer to a first something? A clear simple argument leading to your conclusion would be great.

 

[norain]

Candide,

Thanks for your lengthy reply. I think you are making an honest attempt to understand this, and I appreciate that. I can only hope to make as honest an attempt to respond to your questions.

I’m at work right now and don’t have much time, but I’ll work on it in bits.

I’m still somewhat puzzled by A and B coz they seem to point to the same thing. C is clearly something else. For C to create something, it needs a little push into actuality. Why? Because we have postulated that A moves everything else, and “everything” includes C. Yet A needs C as well, since everything, including A, necessarily comes from C.

So A and C are interdependent, and by that I think they are necessarily functionally one.

By the same process of argument, you can pretty much expand it to the other relationships (i.e. A-D, B-D, etc).

More later, maybe.