Argument from Change: How does it show God can't change?

[RealisticCatholic]

I find Aquinas’ First Way and the Argument from Motion (Change) in general to be very successful in establishing the nature of the First Cause, if it is indeed a successful argument.

However, for me, it depends on arriving at the conclusion that God has NO potential whatsoever. Most arguments suggest just this. (Like from the Thomist Ed Feser.)

When I read the arguments, I understand that you need a First Cause that is Pure Act — no potential — with regard to its existence.

But how does the argument conclude that the First Cause is Pure Act through and through? Even if potential is never actualized, or maybe that potential can be actualized, still: If the First Cause has potential of some sort, then I don’t think we’ve arrived at God.

 

[IWantGod]

If the First Cause has potential of some sort, then I don’t think we’ve arrived at God.

True.

But in-order to account for the existence of any change at all we must arrive at a being that has no change in it’s being or nature whatsoever, or in other-words, a being that is pure-actuality.

 

[John_Martin]

My LORD, ‘I AM’, eternally knows Himself creating me; yet I am not eternally coexisting with Him? Does He only potentially know me?
No, He eternally Co-knows creating me in a joint-knowing with my parents - and on the day they contingently knew each other they were Co-Operating with Him and I was Co-Caused.

All of all is done by the LORD in time by co-operation with His creatures - and the immutable God can deliver his people as if doing a new thing.

John Martin

 

[Wesrock]

The Prime Mover must simply be actual without having gone from potential to actual. If there were any passive potency in the PM that was moved from potency to actual, we’d know the potency was moved by another, and so Prime Mover would not itself be the Prime Mover.

We can further come to know that there is no composition in God, and that includes composition of metaphysical principles, such as act and potency, so God can only be actual. And if God was subject to change and not simply actual, then his essence would also not be identical to his existence, but that is demonstrated as so by the argument from contingency. And if the relation between being and actuality is understood, it’s immediately obvious that something that is not Pure Actuality could not be Subsistent Being, could not be that whose essence is his existence.

 

[RealisticCatholic]

@Wesrock

The other arguments you bring up help complement the argument from change, but I’m wondering if there is a logic to the First Way/Argument from Change itself that leads to the First Cause as Pure Act.

I understand that it leads to a First Cause whose existence is “purely actual,” but I’m having trouble seeing why the argument couldn’t just as well result in some reality that is potential in other respects — even if this potential is never actualized.

Any idea how to get to Pure Act from the First Way itself?

If the First Way cannot get to a First Cause that is Pure Act with no potentials, then it cannot get to God. Instead, any atheist could just as well use the Argument from Change to arrive at some physical reality that just exists but has potentials in other respects.

I’m granting my reasoning about the argument is flawed, which is why I’m hoping you guys can clarify.

 

[RealisticCatholic]

But in-order to account for the existence of any change at all we must arrive at a being that has no change in it’s being or nature whatsoever, or in other-words, a being that is pure-actuality.

But can you demonstrate this?

This is precisely what I’m struggling with. I understand the need for a First Cause whose existence is actual, but why can’t this First Cause have other potentials (even if they are never actualized)?

Other arguments suggest God cannot have an actual part and one or more “potential parts,” because other arguments show God cannot have parts. But these other arguments have their own logic and depend on other assumptions, like agreeing essence and existence are distinct in the way Aquinas says, etc.

I’m looking into the internal logic to the Argument from Change (First Way) in particular.

 

[IWantGod]

But can you demonstrate this?

I did post the following on your other thread, and it does go in to some explanation as to why a first cause is without change. It’s written a bit differently to what Aquinas would say, but the argument is based on or influenced by his work…

1. Out of nothing comes nothing at all. So if a thing begins to be real it must be caused to be real.
2. Because premise 1 is true, it cannot be the case that there was absolutely nothing.
3. Because premise 1 and 2 is true, we cannot have a state of affairs where beings only begin to exist, since their being cannot come from nothing, and so their existence must come from a source that does not begin to exist.
4. Because premise 1, 2, and 3, is true, it follows necessarily that some being must have always existed because it is in it’s nature to exist. In other-words it is self-existent.
5. That which exists because it is it’s nature to exist is necessarily actual since there is no part of it’s nature that does not exist because it is in the nature of everything that it is to exist . Thus there is no unrealized properties or states or potential or anything in it’s nature that is not necessarily real.
6. Because premise 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 is true, an atom cannot be considered a self existent being. An atom moves from potential to actuality; it has unrealised properties, states, and potential.
7. This is true for physical reality as a whole because existentially speaking it’s parts define the nature of the whole ( the space-time-continuum and any other thing that it is ). In other-words, one cannot say that it is in the nature of physical reality to exist and at the same time say that some part of it only potentially exists, as this would contradict the necessity of it’s nature.

Conclusion: There is no thing in physical reality that can be rationally described as self-existent. It’s existence requires a cause because of premise 1. Therefore it follows necessarily that the cause of physical reality is not physical in nature.

 

[IWantGod]

I’m looking into the internal logic to the Argument from Change (First Way) in particular.

All change is a progression of potency to act, and in that regard they all involve an actualisation of that which was only potential at first, whether that be a potential state, property, or being.

So when Aquinas speaks of change that’s exactly what he means, a realisation of that which is ontologically distinct from that which came before.

Given the idea that there is an infinite regress of change or cause and effect, he basically argues that every cause or change leading up to the present moment is itself an effect, and that procession of effects cannot regress infinitely as a sufficient cause to the present effect since they all begin as only potential and potential cannot actualise itself. Thus there must be what he calls a prime-mover or unmoved mover, which put simply is a being that is not a mixture of potency and act. It is not moving from some potential to actuality. It is simply actual, or pure-actuality. Therefore it does not change since it does not lack actuality. It is not incomplete requiring more reality, and is not in a state of becoming which only an imperfect act of reality can do.

In other-words, that which is the foundation of all potential reality cannot itself be in anyway incomplete in it’s actuality since it cannot get any more reality from anywhere else. It has to have what some Thomists call the “fullness of reality”. Otherwise nothing could exist.

 

[IWantGod]

When I read the arguments, I understand that you need a First Cause that is Pure Act — no potential — with regard to its existence .

It’s nature is identical to it’s existence. It’s not potentially it’s existence, it is it’s existence. So to say that it is pure-act means that it’s nature is pure-act since it’s nature is not distinct from it, unlike creation which has it’s existence given to it.

…And since it is not true that our natures naturally exist, it follows that our natures have to be conserved in existence or sustained by the first cause in act. Our natures are distinct from the act of reality even when we have reality.

Hence the esse essence distinction.

 

[IWantGod]

I assume that you’re familiar with the double slit experiment, almost everybody is nowadays. In the double slit experiment an unobserved particle will take every possible path from point A, through two slits, to point B. But if it’s observed it will only take one path from point A to point B.

In either situation there is change, so no your argument does not work.

 

[RealisticCatholic]

1. That which exists because it is it’s nature to exist is necessarily actual since there is no part of it’s nature that does not exist because it is in the nature of everything that it is to exist . Thus there is no unrealized properties or states or potential or anything in it’s nature that is not necessarily real.

This is the part I’m stuck on. Why can’t something whose nature is to exist not have aspects that are potential? Its existence would be fully actual, but it may still have potentials with regard to other things — even if these potentials are not ever actualized by anything else.

 

[Wesrock]

IWantGod:

Thus there must be what he calls a prime-mover or unmoved mover, which put simply is a being that is not a mixture of potency and act. It is not moving from some potential to actuality. It is simply actual, or pure-actuality. Therefore it does not change since it does not lack actuality. It is not incomplete requiring more reality, and is not in a state of becoming which only an imperfect act of reality can do.

I know that you and I have discussed this topic a number of times in the past without much success, but I’m gonna try again.

And although I really don’t like doing it, I’m going to invoke some simple quantum mechanics to hopefully help illustrate an attribute of the first cause that you may not have considered.

I assume that you’re familiar with the double slit experiment, almost everybody is nowadays. In the double slit experiment an unobserved particle will take every possible path from point A, through two slits, to point B. But if it’s observed it will only take one path from point A to point B.

The question is, is that unobserved particle in a state of pure potentiality, or pure actuality? Or both? Or neither?

On the one hand it takes every possible path from A to B. There is no path that it could possibly take, that it doesn’t take. But on the other hand, when observed, it has the potential to have taken any one of the paths, but only one of the paths.

So is our unobserved particle in a state of pure actuality, because it takes every possible path? Or is it in a state of pure potentiality, because it has the potential to have taken any one of them when observed?

Now I realize that comparing the state of an individual particle, to the state of reality as a whole may seem a bit unrealistic, but it raises a lot of questions about the nature of the first cause.

Can something be both pure actuality and pure potentiality at the same time?

It would seem we have a problem in our thinking of conceiving of it only as a particle, which seems a simplification (a model) of the reality. Whatever this photon packet actually is, it’s in its nature to exhibit particle-wave duality. When it hits the contact paper or whatever it’s called on the other side, it displays a wave formation whe no detector is placed on the slits.

 

[IWantGod]

This is the part I’m stuck on. Why can’t something whose nature is to exist not have aspects that are potential? Its existence would be fully actual, but it may still have potentials with regard to other things — even if these potentials are not ever actualized by anything else.

Fundamental reality is necessary in every respect because it cannot not exist.

If a thing is necessarily a circle, it cannot be potentially a square because that contradicts what it necessarily is. If it became a square it wouldn’t necessarily be a circle, and not only that it would have potentiality to something that does not exist necessarily; thus it would neither be necessarily a circle or a square. So why would it be either?

Things like that work with physics because it has the potentiality to be many different things that are contrary to what it might be at any given time. But that’s because it’s nature is not necessarily anything. A nature that is necessary is always that nature and is never anything different. It does not have states, properties, or natures that are not necessary because that would contradict it’s necessary nature.

 

[Wesrock]

Can the prime mover be moved?

 

[Wesrock]

IWantGod:

In either situation there is change, so no your argument does not work.

Without going into detail, it’s only from the perspective of the observer that one can be certain that things change. From the perspective of the unobserved particle it’s possible that nothing changes at all.

So the argument holds, from one perspective the unobserved particle is pure actuality, but from another perspective it’s pure potentiality. From one perspective the particle changes, but from another perspective it doesn’t.

A quantum system can at once be both the source of change, and yet never change.

I don’t feel you’re using the terms actuality and potentiality in the way Aristotleans or Thomists do. Is there a wave-particle duality there? Yes, in either case. “Pure potential” doesn’t subsist in itself. And you went from “it’s possible” to “it’s a fact” between paragraphs. The argument from motion also isn’t focused on changes over time, either.

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

It would seem we have a problem in our thinking of conceiving of it only as a particle, which seems a simplification (a model) of the reality. Whatever this photon packet actually is, it’s in its nature to exhibit particle-wave duality. When it hits the contact paper or whatever it’s called on the other side, it displays a wave formation whe no detector is placed on the slits.

It’s always necessary to keep in mind that it’s from the perspective of the observer, that it exhibits wave/particle duality. And it’s from the perspective of the observer that it can change from one to the other.

From the perspective of the particle however, no such duality may exist.

The “change” between whether or not it exhibits wave or particle behavior from our perspective is not at issue.

 

[IWantGod]

Without going into detail, it’s only from the perspective of the observer that one can be certain that things change. From the perspective of the unobserved particle it’s possible that nothing changes at all.

So the argument holds, from one perspective the unobserved particle is pure actuality, but from another perspective it’s pure potentiality. From one perspective the particle changes, but from another perspective it doesn’t.

A quantum system can at once be both the source of change, and yet never change.

This is not a scientific idea. Real quantum physics still deal with potential states or change observed or otherwise. You are still dealing with something that is moving, and therefore it is not pure-actuality. Something that is pure actuality cannot at the same time not be pure-actuality.

Wave/particle duality is not the same thing as something being necessarily actual and not necessarily actual at the same time.

Stop using scientific theories as a substitute for metaphysics because they are dealing with different aspects of reality. And if you are going to mention a scientific theory, please present it for what it really is.

 

[Wesrock]

You are still dealing with something that is moving, and therefore it is not pure-actuality. Something that is pure actuality cannot at the same time not be pure-actuality.

Wave/particle duality is not the same thing as something being necessarily actual and not necessarily actual at the same time.

Stop using scientific theories as a substitute for metaphysics because they are dealing with different aspects of reality.

Just to add to this. Is there something to observe? Yes. Then something is actual. Whatever behavior its exhibiting from our perspective, there is something actual being studied.

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

The “change” between whether or not it exhibits wave or particle behavior from our perspective is not at issue.

I beg to differ, every conclusion that we draw is from our own limited perspective. Something can be both the source of change, and yet not change.

Please clarify how whatever point you’re trying to make, with its example, is relevant to the argument from motion. I’m not trying to be rude, this just feels like a complete (unintentional) non-sequitur.

 

[IWantGod]

Observation suggests that something can be both pure actuality, and pure potentiality at the same time.

No. Observation suggests that a thing can have a wave/particle duality.

You are arguing that this is the same thing as something having both the quality of necessarily existing and beginning to exist from absolutely nothing at the same time. This is clearly incorrect, and is obvious to anybody that has a modicum of understanding regarding quantum physics or metaphysics.

A wave particle duality is some how possible because of the kind of nature it has. Something coming from absolutely nothing is clearly not.