Aquinas's Five definitions of God

[Faithdancer]

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.

Very well articulated, Linusthe2nd, and I would only add that you point up the danger of only reading a synopsis of the Summa, focusing on the five proofs. There is so much more. The argument for the simplicity of God, as you rightly report, is not taken up until Q.3. It is perhaps one of the most brilliant sections of all of Part I of the Summa, imho, and is exquisitely logical.

I submit that the Summa cannot be comprehended piecemeal. It must be read in its entirety, and then read again, to be completely understood. Having read nearly all of Part 1 and currently being assigned Part 3 I intend, after concluding my current course in Christology, to return and read Part II. I challenge our “atheist” visitors to do likewise, and read the Summa cover to cover, rather than depending on Wiki or some other highly edited version.

 

[Faithdancer]

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.

Ah, you make the error which many beginning students of Aquinas make, which is to assume that a word or phrase means the same in modern English as it does in Scholastic Philosophy. But this begs the question- have you actually read the Summa Theologica?

 

[Candide_West]

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)."

Hey Linus, since the discussion has rather slowed at the moment I’ll offer a couple thoughts.

Two observations. No circular reasoning is involved at all. Each of the Five ways conclude with the existence of a First Being.*

No actually they don’t. Granted the first two ways show a “first something”. The third way if could probably be argued strongly to be a “first something” too (although I’ve yet to see an argument which would rate being called a “proof” of this). The final two ways do not conclude with a “first something” at all (except in that Aquinas arbitrarily renamed each of those in turn by the same name he used for the others).*

Thomas calls this First Being God.*

Yes, and therein lies the problem, firstly, even if we accept each of the arguments individually we have no reason to say they all refer to the same thing. And secondly the appellation “God” carries a large number of connotations which are inappropriate for what Aquinas’s arguments actually demonstrate. The most obvious of which (to me at least) is personal being.*

By definition each of these conclusions embodies a specific perfection which can only be found in the God of Christianity.*

But these characteristics are not found only in the God of Christianity. There are many other religions which posit Gods who meet some or all of those characteristics. Perhaps you meant to say that in Christian belief these characteristics are only found in 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.*

No, but he attempted to provide a proof of the existence of the Christian concept of God. The point here is that EVEN IF we accept each of his arguments then the “proof” has still not proven the existence of a god*nor anything close to it. Let alone the Christian God specifically.

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.

As yet I’m unable to locate any arguments either presented on this thread or in the Summa which show that the Prime Mover or indeed the conclusion of any of the other 5 ways is a “personal being”.*

Perhaps you could quote a section of text or post a link to a page which you believe addresses this? Or better yet, provide a summary of the argument as you understand it.

The previous link you provided gave some text which looked like it was giving links which would in turn support God as a personal being, but on reading each of these I found that in fact this had in each case been assumed a priori (I have tried to follow this backwards to locate a source for this assumption but have yet to locate one).*

Thanks

 

[tafan]

Very well articulated, Linusthe2nd, and I would only add that you point up the danger of only reading a synopsis of the Summa, focusing on the five proofs. There is so much more. The argument for the simplicity of God, as you rightly report, is not taken up until Q.3. It is perhaps one of the most brilliant sections of all of Part I of the Summa, imho, and is exquisitely logical.

I submit that the Summa cannot be comprehended piecemeal. It must be read in its entirety, and then read again, to be completely understood. Having read nearly all of Part 1 and currently being assigned Part 3 I intend, after concluding my current course in Christology, to return and read Part II. I challenge our “atheist” visitors to do likewise, and read the Summa cover to cover, rather than depending on Wiki or some other highly edited version.

I have to disagree about the summa needing to be read cover to cover. I had a seminar once on the Summa and it’s structure and how to read it. Yes it follows a logical progression, but it can be used as a theological reference material very easily and that is the main way Aquinas meant it to be used.
A priest friend of mine read it cover to cover; so I see the benefit of doing so. But that is a huge undertaking and saying it cannot be comprehended piecemeal is going to turn a lot of folks away from a great resource; which is surprisingly easy to use once you get used to the style and vocabulary.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I have to disagree about the summa needing to be read cover to cover. I had a seminar once on the Summa and it’s structure and how to read it. Yes it follows a logical progression, but it can be used as a theological reference material very easily and that is the main way Aquinas meant it to be used.
A priest friend of mine read it cover to cover; so I see the benefit of doing so. But that is a huge undertaking and saying it cannot be comprehended piecemeal is going to turn a lot of folks away from a great resource; which is surprisingly easy to use once you get used to the style and vocabulary.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

St. Thomas does not assume things a priori. I think what he’s doing is assuming that the reader has already seen, and thinks obvious, the conclusions he draws from the Five Ways (omniscience, omipotence, etc.). Then he simply expands on each quality in the other various sections of the Summa.

 

[Candide_West]

St. Thomas does not assume things a priori. I think what he’s doing is assuming that the reader has already seen, and thinks obvious, the conclusions he draws from the Five Ways (omniscience, omipotence, etc.). Then he simply expands on each quality in the other various sections of the Summa.

Ok then, let’s start with that. Please could you explain as plainly as you can the logic leading from the five ways to omniscience.*

I’ve yet to see this logic presented without assuming in advance that all five ways refer to a single thing, and that the thing to which they refer is a personal being. Please note I’m not saying I believe it’s impossible, but thus far I’ve not seen an argument which achieves this. If you or someone else on this thread could present such an argument that would be definite progress.

 

[greylorn]

Hi,

Candide West in this thread,and specifically this post, (forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9677050&postcount=348) raised an interesting question.

Let’s assume for the sake of argument that the Five Ways prove what they intend to prove. Why do we assume all five proofs prove one God? Wouldn’t the five proofs actually prove five different “gods”, each responsible for some different aspect of the world?

I’ll put it another way. We know that the first proof proves that there must be a Prime Mover-a thing that sets everything else in motion.

-The second proof defines God in terms of efficient causality; God is the “First Cause”, not the “Prime Mover”. So God makes everything else move (like a car rolling) in the first proof, but God causes everything (like a fire lighting) in the second proof. They’re closely related, but different. So now we know that God is the Prime Mover and the First Efficient Cause.

-The third proof defines God as the Necessary Being. In this proof it is said that God must cause everything else to exits. So here we learn that God also has the ability to create literally anything not logically contradictory.

-The fourth proof defines God as the Perfect Being. God is the “measuring stick” for all that is “perfect” (things like goodness, knowledge, etc…it’s a concept specified more in detail in the rest of the Summa). At any rate, that would mean he is omniscient (maximum knowledge), omnipotent (maximum power), and omnibenevolent (maximum goodness).

-The fifth proof defines God as what I’ll refer to as the “Intelligent Director”. Basically since things with no intelligence act the same way nearly every time (i.e., a match when struck on the right surface almost always produces a flame), there needs to be something that “directs” them, called God. So we know that God has the power to will things already in existence.

newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm

How is it proven that each proof refers to the same being? Why can’t each proof refer to different beings, all of which exist?

I’m curious to see the answers. It was never a question I seriously considered.

One striking feature about the five proofs is that every proof is very interrelated. There’s a lot of overlap. If you prove God one way many times you’re over half way there to proving God in another way. Indeed, sometimes the distinctions in-between the proofs were so subtle that it was heard for me to come up with a specific descriptor for each definition proven.

Still, I’m not sure of the exact steps to get from point A to point E.

This is an excellent post, showing deep insights and a good sense of logic. The ability to recognize flaws in an argument is the first step toward their correction.

Aquinas also fails to demonstrate that his “proofs” apply to the omnipotent, omniscient God in Whom he believes.

 

[Sair]

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.

Is St Thomas, then, using a deviant definition of ‘simplicity’?

 

[Sair]

Ah, you make the error which many beginning students of Aquinas make, which is to assume that a word or phrase means the same in modern English as it does in Scholastic Philosophy. But this begs the question- have you actually read the Summa Theologica?

I have not, nor was I ever introduced to it during the first half of my life, in which I was a committed Catholic.

The question then becomes - would I learn anything from reading the Summa that I have not been able to acquire from reading the various accounts of same that have turned up here on the philosophy forum? The arguments are not convincing at second hand.

What’s more, I am quite familiar, as a student of history, with differing definitions and weights of words in different eras. However, the idea of ‘simplicity’ when referring to God still does not wash - it adds nothing to the notion of a personal, creative force that makes me sit up and say, “Oh, well, that explains everything!” Nor does it answer the criticism that any being with intelligence, creativity and personality must be a complex - even evolved - entity. There is still no explanation for the origins and existence of anything like the God of Classical Theism. If we’re going to argue over the likelihood of genuinely simple entities existing eternally vs the likelihood of Thomistically ‘simple’ entities existing eternally, then there is still the want of explanation for the latter.

 

[tonyrey]

I have not, nor was I ever introduced to it during the first half of my life, in which I was a committed Catholic.

The question then becomes - would I learn anything from reading the Summa that I have not been able to acquire from reading the various accounts of same that have turned up here on the philosophy forum? The arguments are not convincing at second hand.

What’s more, I am quite familiar, as a student of history, with differing definitions and weights of words in different eras. However, the idea of ‘simplicity’ when referring to God still does not wash - it adds nothing to the notion of a personal, creative force that makes me sit up and say, “Oh, well, that explains everything!” Nor does it answer the criticism that any being with intelligence, creativity and personality must be a complex - even evolved - entity. There is still no explanation for the origins and existence of anything like the God of Classical Theism. If we’re going to argue over the likelihood of genuinely simple entities existing eternally vs the likelihood of Thomistically ‘simple’ entities existing eternally, then there is still the want of explanation for the latter.

Do you regard yourself as one person? In a court of law the criterion of simplicity is summed up in your premeditated decision - which is yours and yours alone… and no one else’s…

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Is St Thomas, then, using a deviant definition of ‘simplicity’?

Yes, actually. I’m not actually a Thomist, just an amateur, but with some googling I could take a crack at defining it in a way that’s really accurate (right now I might be able to give a rough definition but that wouldn’t be easy).

 

[Sair]

Do you regard yourself as one person? In a court of law the criterion of simplicity is summed up in your premeditated decision - which is yours and yours alone… and no one else’s…

I think you are confusing a single entity with a simple entity here.

Unless you think humans are profoundly simple in the way your God is claimed to be so?

 

[JDaniel]

I have not, nor was I ever introduced to it during the first half of my life, in which I was a committed Catholic.

The question then becomes - would I learn anything from reading the Summa that I have not been able to acquire from reading the various accounts of same that have turned up here on the philosophy forum? The arguments are not convincing at second hand.

What’s more, I am quite familiar, as a student of history, with differing definitions and weights of words in different eras. However, the idea of ‘simplicity’ when referring to God still does not wash - it adds nothing to the notion of a personal, creative force that makes me sit up and say, “Oh, well, that explains everything!” Nor does it answer the criticism that any being with intelligence, creativity and personality must be a complex - even evolved - entity. There is still no explanation for the origins and existence of anything like the God of Classical Theism. If we’re going to argue over the likelihood of genuinely simple entities existing eternally vs the likelihood of Thomistically ‘simple’ entities existing eternally, then there is still the want of explanation for the latter.

Sair:

God’s Simplicity simply means, transliterated into today’s vernacular, that He is not a composite. You were right earlier when you indicated that the third definition you provided was the pertinent definition. Because God is not a complex composition of parts, He is referred to as Simple.

God bless,
jd

 

[norain]

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.

 

[greylorn]

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.

Not really. First you must define “omnipotent” is a manner such that it is consistent with cause and effect in the real world.

For example, if your hypothetical omnipotent entity can exert infinite force, and if it applies that force to a single proton, the proton will immediately accelerate and reach the speed of light. At that point it will have infinite mass, and will be surrounded by infinite gravity, which will immediately suck all matter and energy in the universe into the space-time point it occupies, thus instantly obliterating the universe.

Omnipotence is not an interesting property to those who understand a modicum of physics. Moreover, it is not a necessary property for any Creator of the Universe.

 

[Sair]

Sair:

God’s Simplicity simply means, transliterated into today’s vernacular, that He is not a composite. You were right earlier when you indicated that the third definition you provided was the pertinent definition. Because God is not a complex composition of parts, He is referred to as Simple.

God bless,
jd

Surely, according to Christian theology, God must be a composite of at least three parts.

And there has still been no explanation forthcoming (or even attempted, apparently) as to how particular qualities, such as intelligence and creativity, for starters, arise from a completely uniform entity. It seems like one great big just-so story - “God is simple because we can’t comprehend him. That’s all.”

 

[norain]

For example, if your hypothetical omnipotent entity can exert infinite force

I see, however, there exists two problems:

First, why would God want to do that?
Second, one can reject that definition, and just define omnipotence as that which creates and governs everything, which is how I see “omnipotence”. In a sense, nothing could be greater, without requiring infinite power.

 

[norain]

One other thing. Potency I think does not need to be measured as a force, or power. If so, where did this power come from? Violates thermodynamics, if you believe in that stuff.

On the other hand, what if there was an anti-force that neutralizes all power? Then such a postulated entity would render your omnipotent entity impotent!

Actually, there is such an entity. I’ll let you guess what it is.

 

[JDaniel]

Surely, according to Christian theology, God must be a composite of at least three parts.

Sair:

Why? You are one in the same Sair, whether you are exhibiting kindness, meanness or indifference - or all three.

And there has still been no explanation forthcoming (or even attempted, apparently) as to how particular qualities, such as intelligence and creativity, for starters, arise from a completely uniform entity. It seems like one great big just-so story - “God is simple because we can’t comprehend him. That’s all.”

I could refer you to a couple of books that are full and sufficient explanations of each. This is a quick questions and quick answers forum and is not for the purpose of lengthy explanations. (In fact, my Admin scolded me for inserting 4 paragraphs taken directly from a book. If I had attempted to codify it into my own writing, it might have consumed the space of 8 or more paragraphs! Of course, I understand the Admin’s intent and am OK with it.) Your complaint is better suited against the program the forum uses than against God or any of His believers. The answers you want are not a short story or easy to codify. For example, near me is a Physics book by Harnwell and Legge. It consists of 535 pages. Each page builds upon the previous. I don’t think the authors could have made it much shorter.

But, we can certainly start new threads on those two subjects.

God bless,
jd