Aquinas's Five definitions of God

[JDaniel]

Well then, which of the 5 “gods” of the proofs are we talking about as simple? Can’t the “Prime Mover” be simple but the “Perfect Being” and the “Necessary Being” be different from the Prime Mover?

Marc:

No. “Simplicity” means unity and singularity, not disunity and multiplicity. Absolute simplicity means the complete absence of restrictedness, boundaries and finitude. And God is Absolute Simplicity. Whatever is the Prime Mover must also be the First Cause, and so on. Wouldn’t two infinite beings with similar determinants really be one and the same being? Else, each would have restrictedness and boundary-ness which would cause exclusions and incompatibilities. How else could they co-exist?

God bless,
jd

 

[Faithdancer]

Just wanted to add that of course, and it hopefully goes without saying, we will accept all of the Episcopalian laity into the Catholic Christian fold as well. And anyone else, for that matter! We have pathways to initiation that cover every conceivable contingency (to use a Thomistic buzz word, lol!). :yup::bowdown2:

Just quoting myself to add more smilies at the thought of all the Protestants suddenly converting to the one true faith!:bounce::tiphat::extrahappy::whacky:

\

 

[Perplexity]

Anyone else notice that there are no “atheists” to be found yet on this thread? Is Aquinas like garlic to them?

I’d be willing to debate over the Quinque Viae, though I’m reluctant: what could either of us say that hasn’t been said? Perhaps one of us can present information the other was previously unaware of, information that’d change our perspective.

I don’t have time for extensive discussion (I’d rather be with my fiancee ) but, I can certainly have an exchange. Which do you find most persuasive?

 

[Faithdancer]

I’d be willing to debate over the Quinque Viae, though I’m reluctant: what could either of us say that hasn’t been said? Perhaps one of us can present information the other was previously unaware of, information that’d change our perspective.

I don’t have time for extensive discussion (I’d rather be with my fiancee ) but, I can certainly have an exchange. Which do you find most persuasive?

I believe it is the preponderance of all five, taken together, which is persuasive.

I also don’t have time for a lot of lengthy disussion, however, now that my fall semester has started and I’m taking Christology, hence moving much further into Aquinas than the Quinque Viae- Summa Part III, to be precise!:dancing::bounce::bowdown2:

 

[Perplexity]

Kewl, sounds good

I s’pose we could start with the first way. There are a number of objections I have to this argument, but here’s a neat n’ tidy one:

1. Everything that moves is moved.
2. Everything that’s moved is moved by another
3. Therefore, everything that moves is moved by another.

This is logically valid, meaning if the premises are true the conclusion has to be true. So, to avoid (3) which entails that are no unmoved movers we must reject either (1) or (2). But, (2) is a thomistic principle (stated in the 1st way no less) leaving you with (1). Why should we reject (1)?

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Kewl, sounds good

I s’pose we could start with the first way. There are a number of objections I have to this argument, but here’s a neat n’ tidy one:

1. Everything that moves is moved.
2. Everything that’s moved is moved by another
3. Therefore, everything that moves is moved by another.

This is logically valid, meaning if the premises are true the conclusion has to be true. So, to avoid (3) which entails that are no unmoved movers we must reject either (1) or (2). But, (2) is a thomistic principle (stated in the 1st way no less) leaving you with (1). Why should we reject (1)?

I just went through this with another poster but you seem polite so may you please start another thread to discuss this? I intended this thread to be for those who already accepted the five proofs as valid.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Marc:

No. “Simplicity” means unity and singularity, not disunity and multiplicity. Absolute simplicity means the complete absence of restrictedness, boundaries and finitude. And God is Absolute Simplicity. Whatever is the Prime Mover must also be the First Cause, and so on. Wouldn’t two infinite beings with similar determinants really be one and the same being? Else, each would have restrictedness and boundary-ness which would cause exclusions and incompatibilities. How else could they co-exist?

God bless,
jd

Okay, I’m going to try and slow down a bit because now I’m a bit confused.

So, are we saying that all five definitions MUST refer to only One God because all of the qualities that the different proofs talk about can only be manifest in one being?

So if one is a Prime Mover because God is simple one CAN’T only be a Prime Mover? Since God is simple and we’ve proven the other four proofs God must ALSO have the qualities of the other four proofs?

Put another way, if all Five Ways are true then because God is simple they can only refer to one God, who would have all of the qualities specified in the Ways?

Do I have this correct?

 

[JDaniel]

Okay, I’m going to try and slow down a bit because now I’m a bit confused.

So, are we saying that all five definitions MUST refer to only One God because all of the qualities that the different proofs talk about can only be manifest in one being?

Marc:

Well, not precisely. St. Thomas, and others, explain why and how God is One and Absolutely Simple by a consideration of all, or most, of the extant determinants, including the Five Ways and all that we take from Revelation. The Five Ways don’t in and of themselves perfectly point to an Absolutely Simple Being (but they might), although it is hard to not conclude that they don’t. If one concludes that they don’t, that is a personal choice, one that can be overcome by a full explanation and understanding of the necessity of Absolute Simplicity. I’d say, an opposing conclusion would be tantamount to science fiction.

So if one is a Prime Mover because God is Simple one CAN’T only be a Prime Mover? Since God is Simple and we’ve proven the other four proofs God must ALSO have the qualities of the other four proofs?

Yes.

Put another way, if all Five Ways are true then because God is Simple they can only refer to one God, who would have all of the qualities specified in the Ways?

Do I have this correct?

Correct, IMO.

God bless,
jd

 

[Candide_West]

Okay, I’m going to try and slow down a bit because now I’m a bit confused.*

So, are we saying that all five definitions MUST refer to only One God because all of the qualities that the different proofs talk about can only be manifest in one being?

So if one is a Prime Mover because God is simple one CAN’T only be a Prime Mover? Since God is simple and we’ve proven the other four proofs God must ALSO have the qualities of the other four proofs?

Put another way, if all Five Ways are true then because God is simple they can only refer to one God, who would have all of the qualities specified in the Ways?

Do I have this correct?

Hi Marc,

Just thought I’d drop by to say hello and see how discussion is going.*

I also thought its worth noting that constructing an argument based on God being “simple” may not be as straightforward as the above. The reason being that you’ll need to support that God is simple from first principles (Aquinas’s argument to show simplicity is in itself dependent on the conclusions of the five ways, so you can’t use it to show that the five ways all refer to the same thing without the argument being circular and hence failing to function as a proof).

Incidentally did you get any further with showing “personal being” from the five ways? Don’t want to derail this thread as there’s some interesting discussion going on. But the previous discussion stopped rather suddenly, so just wanted to check if you lost interest in the discussion or didn’t notice I replied.*

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Conclusion of the First Way. " Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God. "

The following question has been raised in regard to Thomas’ explanation of the " simplicity " of the First Being. " you’ll need to support that God is simple from first principles (Aquinas’s argument to show simplicity is in itself dependent on the conclusions of the five ways, so you can’t use it to show that the five ways all refer to the same thing without the argument being circular and hence failing to function as a proof)."

Two observations. No circular reasoning is involved at all. Each of the Five ways conclude with the existence of a First Being. In the First Way this Being is An Unmoved Mover, the second way concludes in a First Being called The First Efficient Cause, the Third Way concludes in a First Being called a Necessary Being having its b-e-i-n-g, of itself and not owing it to any other being, the Fourth Way concludes in a First Being which is the cause of the existence ( actuality or act of b-e-i-n-g), goodnes and every other perfection, the source of the b-e-i-n-g in every other being. The Fifth Way concludes in a First Being which is the Intelligent Being by whom all natural beings are directed to their to their proper ends.

Thomas calls this First Being God. By definition each of these conclusions embodies a specific perfection which can only be found in the God of Christianity. So each way concludes in the Same First Being all people of the Christian faith call God.

So it is unnecessary to " draw out " the conclusion of each way to demonstrate that each refers to the same God. It is a facetious objection to make this demand.Thomas was not engaged in an argument with sophists who raise every objection just for the sake of arguing. He was engaged in writing a Theology Text for students in Theology who had no trouble recoginzing what he was talking about. But he did employ the philosophy of well known Pagans, Muslims, and Jews correcting their errors as he went.

After proving that God exists he procedes to defining God’s nature in Questions 3 through 11.

Beginning with Question 3 he proves God’s Simplicity in articles 1-7 of this question.He first proves God is not a bodfy in three ways, one of which is the following: “…Secondly, because the first being must of necessity be in act, and in no way in potentiality. For although in any single thing that passes from potentiality to actuality, the potentiality is prior in time to the actuality; nevertheless, absolutely speaking, actuality is prior to potentiality; for whatever is in potentiality can be reduced into actuality only by some being in actuality. Now it has been already proved that God is the First Being. It is therefore impossible that in God there should be any potentiality. But every body is in potentiality because the continuous, as such, is divisible to infinity; it is therefore impossible that God should be a body…” He procedes in each article to eliminate all compsition of any type in God concluding to the absolute Simplicity of God.

Proceding through each Question he proves that God is absolutely Perfect and the source of every perfection in creatures, absolutely Good, the source of every goodness in creatures, God’s Supreme Goodness, His Limitlesness, His Omnipresence in all creatures, His Unchangeableness, His Eternity, and His Oneness ( there is only one God).

In Vol 3 Thomas goes on to explain how we can know God and how we can name God. Article 11 of Question 13 concludes with the Name " He who is " as the most appropriate name for God.

In the Volumes which follow we find God is a Living Being, He has Intellect and Will, is Love, loving himself and his creatures perfectly, is Omnipotent, Omniscient, knowing all existing things and all possible things, is Provident, providing all necessities for all his creatures, that he does not cause evil, and among other things is a Person. That he is a Person is discussed in Volum 6, Question 29.

The question has been raised is God a person, to whom " I am " can be applied? That question is answered positively here and above as should be clear. One should not expect to empose our idea of " person " on God. Person as applied to God means a Subsistent Being whose nature is simply to Exist. It should be clear that " person " as we normally think of the term cannot really be applied to God since his Personhood is simple beyond what we can comprehend. It does however include " communication " between his Personhood and ourselves. He communicates to us through nature and his provident actions and through his grace and through his Revealation. We communicate to him through Worship, Praise, prayer and service.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Incidentally did you get any further with showing “personal being” from the five ways? Don’t want to derail this thread as there’s some interesting discussion going on. But the previous discussion stopped rather suddenly, so just wanted to check if you lost interest in the discussion or didn’t notice I replied.*

Glad you’ve been paying attention to the thread.

Anyway I think that figuring out if the Five Ways all point to only One God goes a very large way towards establishing that this God is a personal being, because each proof gives us different “qualities” of God. Omniscience alone goes a long way towards helping us figure out if God is self-aware.

 

[Sair]

Considerations of simplicity can probably come into play here and this is probably a good point to apply Occam’s razor which tells us (all things being equal) not to multiply explanations beyond necessity. In short, if one being explains those 5 aspects of the proofs, then we should choose the simplest explanation, that there is only one such being, rather than the more complicated explanation that there are 5 such beings.

A being that intelligently creates and directs universes must be many things, but ‘simple’ could not be one of them.

Since my thread on the subject of the intelligibility of referring to ‘God’ was shut down without the least appearance of animosity arising from it, thanks to the ‘temporary’ (and apparently arbitrary) ban on threads discussing atheism and/or evolution (coming up for three years old and counting…) I might as well raise the question in a slightly different context, since this thread is concerning definitions of God.

Taking Aquinas’s five proofs into account and supposing them to refer to a single entity - what would be the difference in reality, as we perceive it, if any of these five qualities were lacking, or were a bit different? In other words, a claim to ‘prove’ that God exists and is all the things he/she/it is asserted to be, seems to require some other ground against which we could compare one state of affairs - this God exists - with the alternative - this God, this precise God, does not exist (but maybe some other type of God does exist…)

To consider the universe as it is and say, “The only possible explanation is this God,” is an assertion without foundation, unless one can say, “Were this not the case, we would know it by these criteria”. As another poster commented, there are simple entities that behave the same way in the same circumstances, every time, without fail. It may be the case that there is an intelligent being directing these simple entities to behave thus; but it may equally be the case that in their simplicity, such entities cannot behave otherwise than their basic, uncomplicated nature dictates - they can hardly have a choice, or exercise any thought upon the matter. An application of Occam’s razor here would cut the intelligent director right out of the picture.

 

[davidv]

A being that intelligently creates and directs universes must be many things, but ‘simple’ could not be one of them.

What do you take “simple” to mean in context of this thread? How does it compare to Thomas’ definition?

Since my thread on the subject of the intelligibility of referring to ‘God’ was shut down without the least appearance of animosity arising from it, thanks to the ‘temporary’ (and apparently arbitrary) ban on threads discussing atheism and/or evolution (coming up for three years old and counting…) I might as well raise the question in a slightly different context, since this thread is concerning definitions of God.

Taking Aquinas’s five proofs into account and supposing them to refer to a single entity - what would be the difference in reality, as we perceive it, if any of these five qualities were lacking, or were a bit different? In other words, a claim to ‘prove’ that God exists and is all the things he/she/it is asserted to be, seems to require some other ground against which we could compare one state of affairs - this God exists - with the alternative - this God, this precise God, does not exist (but maybe some other type of God does exist…)

To consider the universe as it is and say, “The only possible explanation is this God,” is an assertion without foundation, unless one can say, “Were this not the case, we would know it by these criteria”. As another poster commented, there are simple entities that behave the same way in the same circumstances, every time, without fail. It may be the case that there is an intelligent being directing these simple entities to behave thus; but it may equally be the case that in their simplicity, such entities cannot behave otherwise than their basic, uncomplicated nature dictates - they can hardly have a choice, or exercise any thought upon the matter. An application of Occam’s razor here would cut the intelligent director right out of the picture.

 

[JDaniel]

Hi Marc,

Just thought I’d drop by to say hello and see how discussion is going.*

I also thought its worth noting that constructing an argument based on God being “simple” may not be as straightforward as the above. The reason being that you’ll need to support that God is simple from first principles (Aquinas’s argument to show simplicity is in itself dependent on the conclusions of the five ways, so you can’t use it to show that the five ways all refer to the same thing without the argument being circular and hence failing to function as a proof).

Incidentally did you get any further with showing “personal being” from the five ways? Don’t want to derail this thread as there’s some interesting discussion going on. But the previous discussion stopped rather suddenly, so just wanted to check if you lost interest in the discussion or didn’t notice I replied.*

I’d like to know which of these “is dependent on the conclusions of the five ways:”
Question 3. The simplicity of God
1.Is God a body?
2.Is He composed of matter and form?
3.Is there composition of quiddity, essence or nature, and subject in Him?
4.Is He composed of essence and existence?
5.Is He composed of genus and difference?
6.Is He composed of subject and accident?
7.Is He in any way composite, or wholly simple?
8.Does He enter into composition with other things? - Summa Theologica, Part I, Q 3

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

Glad you’ve been paying attention to the thread.

Anyway I think that figuring out if the Five Ways all point to only One God goes a very large way towards establishing that this God is a personal being, because each proof gives us different “qualities” of God. Omniscience alone goes a long way towards helping us figure out if God is self-aware.

Marc:

Exactly. The usual definition of “man” is that he is a rational animal. To say “rational animal” is to say something that is complex, in other words, can be divided into determinants. What does “rational” mean? What does “animal” mean?

“Rational” means "having the ability to ratiocinate, to think, to conceive ideas, to arrive at conclusions, to use logic, to undertake a dialectic, to make decisions, etc., etc. Each one is a kind of determinant, i.e., attribute. A number of similar divisions can be defined for “animal.” And, one human being contains all of them. They each do not constitute a separate person, but rather, one and the same person.

Likewise with God. Each of the Five Ways are determinants that are interwoven with reality and the world. Like the determinants of a man, each can be said separately. But, separately they make little or no ontological sense. One would not say, "A man consists of a dozen beings, one that ratiocinates, one that conceives ideas, one that uses logic, one that undertakes dialectics, one that makes decisions, and so on. That would be absurd. And so it is absurd to say it of God.

God bless,
jd

 

[Sair]

What do you take “simple” to mean in context of this thread? How does it compare to Thomas’ definition?

I take ‘simple’ to mean actual simplicity - that is, according to the Oxford dictionary’s definition - “1. Easily understood or done; presenting no difficulty. 2. not complicated or elaborate; without luxury or sophistication. 3. [Which is perhaps the most relevant in this context] not compound; consisting of or involving only one element or operation etc.”

Aquinas’s ‘first cause’ need not be an intelligent creator - there is a growing body of evidence suggesting that the first cause was genuinely simple - not an entity that knew what it was doing.

An intelligent, personal being that is capable of exercising creativity cannot conform to standard definitions of ‘simplicity’. If it could, if it were indeed simple, consciousness and its manifold operations would be very easy to understand, and we would know, from minimal investigation if any, precisely how God works and interacts with the world. I have seen it asserted, on numerous occasions, that God is ‘simple’, but this seems quite contradictory to me, especially since no-one has ever been able to offer any adequate description or explanation of how they know even what God is, let alone how he/she/it behaves.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

I take ‘simple’ to mean actual simplicity - that is, according to the Oxford dictionary’s definition - "1. Easily understood or done; presenting no difficulty. 2. not complicated or elaborate; without luxury or sophistication.

We’re talking about St. Thomas’s definition of simplicity. If you’re arguing about a completely different definition you’re equivocating. I believe this is known as the dictionary fallacy.

 

[Candide_West]

Glad you’ve been paying attention to the thread.

Anyway I think that figuring out if the Five Ways all point to only One God goes a very large way towards establishing that this God is a personal being, because each proof gives us different “qualities” of God. Omniscience alone goes a long way towards helping us figure out if God is self-aware.

Yes, I think it would certainly help if we could show that the five ways all refer to one thing. But I don’t think it gets you all the way there. Also not sure where omniscience is coming from either, from looking at the summa it seems to come from perfection + personal being. If I’m correct in that then obviously it would be circular reasoning to derive personal being back from omniscience.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Thomas discusses the Personhood of God in both Summas. In the Summa Theologica the discussion begins with Question 29 and goes through Question 43. For you convenience see: newadvent.org/summa/1.htm

Of course you are free to disagree but it is what Thomas taught. And it sums up nicely what the Catholic Church actually teaches.

Also see last para. in post # 70.

 

[Faithdancer]

Thomas discusses the Personhood of God in both Summas. In the Summa Theologica the discussion begins with Question 29 and goes through Question 43. For you convenience see: newadvent.org/summa/1.htm

Of course you are free to disagree but it is what Thomas taught. And it sums up nicely what the Catholic Church actually teaches.

Also see last para. in post # 70.

Interesting that you mention that sequence of questions, Linusthe2nd. Just completed reading and analyzing those for a summer course in One and Triune God. I’ve now skipped forward to Part III, starting with Q. 1, for the follow up course, Christology. Deo gratias!:bowdown2: