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

  • Thread starter Thread starter RealisticCatholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
looskanal said:
40.png
Wesrock:
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.
Click to expand...
I’m attempting to question the nature of the first cause. All that Aquinas may be describing in the first way is a quantum field.
Click to expand...
Is a quantum field static, not located anywhere, and personal?
 
The First Way as I understand it starts with change, abstracts from that the principles of act and potency, and then suggests that we must arrive at something whose existence is not actualized by another — instead, it just is in act.

What would stop an atheist from saying that some fundamental physical reality’s existence is in actuality and does not need to be actualized by anything else?

What I’m getting at is that it seems the First Way only arrives at some reality whose existence is fully actual. Anything else seems to be bringing in aspects of other arguments, like the argument for simplicity or the essence-existence distinction.
It does not have states, properties, or natures that are not necessary because that would contradict it’s necessary nature.
Click to expand...
The First Cause’s existence is necessary by nature. Please don’t be frustrated with me. But I’m just finding it hard to understand why that means the First Cause can’t change in other ways:

First Cause = [Part in Actuality] + [Potential Part]

Is the answer that, in this case, this “Part in Actuality” would be the true first cause?
 
Last edited:
Can it be changed in some way?

I’m not sure.

I know what the argument concludes, but I’m having trouble reaching the conclusion on my own.
 
looskanal said:
40.png
IWantGod:
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.
Click to expand...
It possesses all the necessary attributes as proposed by Aquinas’ first way.
Click to expand...
It’s immutable, eternal, one, not composed or extended in space and time, omniscient, omnipotent, with a voluntary will?
 
Here’s a visual I made if it helps get across what I’m saying

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
RealisticCatholic said:
But I’m just finding it hard to understand why that means the First Cause can’t change in other ways:
Click to expand...
Well, the first argument i would make is that such a change would involve changing from something that it necessarily was, which is a contradiction as that would mean that it is no-longer what it necessarily was, but instead it is now something it necessarily is not; whether that be a new state, property, or nature. I try to use the square and circle analogy to help you better understand that.

But lets try something else. If the first cause has the potential to be something distinct from what it already is, this would mean that the first cause fundamentally lacks the actuality that it can realise. So what you are dealing with here is a first cause that is not pure-actuality or rather it’s being is not fully actualised (it has natures, properties or states that are not actual).

So let me ask you a question. Can you think of a reason why this would be a contradiction for a being that is fundamental to all potential beings?
 
Last edited:
The First paragraph helped.

The second one I think can help, once I mention this:

When I’m thinking about “existence is actual,” I’m not referring to any nature but am just considering that whatever the First Cause is, its existence is something that does not have to be actualized by anything else.

So maybe you could better help me see how the First Cause’s purely actual existence is identified with a purely actual nature?

(Without having to dive into separate arguments like essence-existence. I’m just trying to better understand the First Way on its own terms.)
 
Last edited:
RealisticCatholic said:
When I’m thinking about “existence is actual,” I’m not referring to any nature but am just considering that whatever the First Cause is, its existence is something that does not have to be actualized by anything else.
Click to expand...
But this is what i was trying to address earlier. The first cause is it’s nature. It’s nature is not something in existence as if to say existence is something distinct. It does not have existence, as if to say that it is something it’s nature is given. It’s nature is it’s existence. In fact, anything that begins to exist, comes into God’s existence. The universe exists in God. The first cause is not a being among other beings, but rather the first cause is the very ontology in which potential things have their existence.
 
Last edited:
And is this what is meant by arriving at something whose existence is purely actual? It means arriving at something whose nature is its existence?
 
If it was not the nature of the Prime Mover to be Actuality, then it would have to be moved to actuality by something else whose nature simply is Actuality. But that just means the former was never the PM; the latter is. The PM isn’t just actual, it’s Actuality itself.
 
looskanal said:
40.png
RealisticCatholic:
And is this what is meant by arriving at something whose existence is purely actual? It means arriving at something whose nature is its existence?
Click to expand...
IWantGod said:
Yes, exactly…
Click to expand...
Wesrock said:
If it was not the nature of the Prime Mover to be Actuality, then it would have to be moved to actuality by something else whose nature simply is Actuality. But that just means the former was never the PM; the latter is. The PM isn’t just actual, it’s Actuality itself.
Click to expand...
Hurray, you’ve all just described a quantum field. Something that exists without a cause, and is itself the cause of everything else. Which never changes, yet is the source of change. Which is eternal. And all powerful.

The first cause is a quantum field.
Click to expand...
Aside from the fact that the field itself fluctuates and vibrates a lot at the quantum level, and is apparently growing as the universe expands, you make a claim that it is “uncaused,” which can’t be reasoned to or demonstrated scientifically.
 
Last edited:
looskanal said:
The first cause is a quantum field.
Click to expand...
Your idea of a quantum field from what i can gather from past discussions would be something that is not physical in nature, since it is not a physical process and it is not the space-time continuum. So why do you call it the quantum field?
 
Wesrock said:
Aside from the fact that the field itself fluctuates and vibrates a lot at the quantum level, and is apparently growing as the universe expands, you make a claim that it is “uncaused,” which can’t be reasoned to or demonstrated scientifically.
Click to expand...
Big thumbs up.
 
Science has a different idea from what you think. The quantum field is a part of the physical universe. I guess i don’t understand why you choose to make a distinction between physical reality and quantum physics.

One might justifiably say that you are making it up. I just think it’s your own philosophy which you have failed to substantiate. You are free to prove me wrong and i will in turn put up an emoticon with red cheeks.

I would much prefer to move on to why you think the first cause does not have an intellect and will.
 
looskanal said:
40.png
Wesrock:
Aside from the fact that the field itself fluctuates and vibrates a lot at the quantum level, and is apparently growing as the universe expands, you make a claim that it is “uncaused,” which can’t be reasoned to or demonstrated scientifically.
Click to expand...
There’s absolutely no reason to think that a quantum field fluctuates, simply because you perceive it to fluctuate. That which is the source of space and time can’t be subject to space and time. It would be outside of them just as God is perceived to be outside of them. Try not to use a double standard.
Click to expand...
This feels more like a tongue-in-cheek response and unreasoned speculation not grounded in science on something that is empirically observable on some level. You’re basically describing what monotheists conceive of as God acting through the quantum field.
There can’t be something “before” that which is the cause of space and time, the very concept of “before” or “causation” would be meaningless.
Click to expand...
Yes, I know and agree, at least insofar as when talking about temporal events. I might still call that which is independent as causally “before” something which is dependent on it without meaning any reference to time.
 
Last edited:
Science has shown that any expanding universe, or any “unstable” state, must have a beginning. So even from science, we know that a quantum field cannot be the First Cause.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top