Argument proof check

[FireFromHeaven]

I’m presenting an argument for the existence of God tomorrow. Here’s my argument. I based it off this video. youtu.be/BAIHs5TJRqQ

Please let me know if you see any ways I can improve it. Also please pray for me.

1. Change occurs
2. Change is where a potential inherent to a substance is actualized
3. A potential requires something that is already actual to actualize it; in other words a causer
4. Things have the potential to lose their form or disintegrate
5. Thus things require something to actualize their forms at any given moment in time
6. This chain of actualizers could not be infinite and would have to terminate in something which would not need to have its potentialities actualized ex. Water
7. This pure actuality or unactualized actualizer would be unchanging since change requires a potential to be actualized and pure actuality has no potentials
8. Time requires change from moment to moment
9. Since pure actuality is unchanging it will be eternal
10. Since matter always has the potential to change form, pure actuality would be immaterial
11. Imperfection is unactualized potential
12. Since pure actuality has no potential it cannot possibly not be perfect
13. There could only be one unactualized actualizer because if there were two they would be undifferentiable because actuality is perfect ex. Zeus, Hera, Athena
14. Power is the ability to actualize potential
15. Since this unactualized actualizer is pure actuality and the source of all actualization it cannot possibly lack power
16. Something is good to the extent that it realizes the potentials inherent in its nature
17. Since the unactualized actualizer is pure actuality it cannot not fulfill potentials and thus cannot not be good
18. Intelligence is the ability to grasp abstract concepts (such as man or honest), the ability to combine different concepts into thoughts ( He is an honest man) and the ability to reason from one though to another ( honest men don’t lie; he is honest; therefore he doesn’t lie)
19. The unactualized actualizer causes both the concrete things that concepts come from and any relationships between them
20. A changer cannot actualize a potential that it doesn’t already have that potential actualized within itself
21. ince the unactualized actualizer causes both intelligent beings to exist and causes all properties and relationships between things it must contain intelligence
22. Since the unactualized actualizer causes all concepts it must be all knowing
23. Thus there is an immaterial, all powerful, eternal, perfect, omnibenevolent, all knowing being of pure actuality in other words, there is a God

 

[Beryllos]

Praying that the Holy Spirit assist and guide you always in your quest for truth, goodness, and love.

 

[ServusHumilis]

Pater Noster…

 

[Nixbits]

FireFromHeaven, here are a few thoughts to help you improve your argument by making it more readily understood by someone unfamiliar with philosophical debates (like me).

Is point 5 saying that things require something external to keep them from changing form? Or is it saying that things require something external to cause them to lose their form or disintegrate? If so, how are points 4 & 5 significantly different to points 2 & 3?

In point 6, what do you mean by “ex. Water”?

If point 8 is true, then point 9 should say that something unchanging must be outside of time, or operates in a timeless state, not that it is eternal (meaning ‘lasting for all time’). This suggests that the unchanging thing cannot exist or operate within time. I’m not sure if that’s what you want to imply.

Point 23 is a summary. ‘All powerful’ seems to come from point 15, but point 15 seems only to establish that the unchanging thing has some power. ‘Eternal’ seems to come from point 9, which I have addressed above. ‘Perfect’ seems to come from point 12, but we need to be clear that this refers to the definition of the word as used by Thomas Aquinas, not the normal everyday meaning of perfect. ‘Omnibenevolent’ presumably comes from point 17, but this refers to the definition of good as used by Thomas Aquinas and so is not equivalent to benevolence.

I don’t understand point 13. I don’t see how it precludes the possibility of more than one unchanging actualiser.

Point 6 establishes that something is needed to start off the chain of changes. But the wording of points 19, 21 and 22 suggests to me that this unchanging actualiser causes things that have come into being after this initial start. Is this your assertion? Or did the unchanging actualiser start off the chain of events and other things (concrete things, intelligent beings) come into being as a result of the chain of changes?

 

[FireFromHeaven]

FireFromHeaven, here are a few thoughts to help you improve your argument by making it more readily understood by someone unfamiliar with philosophical debates (like me).

Is point 5 saying that things require something external to keep them from changing form? Or is it saying that things require something external to cause them to lose their form or disintegrate? If so, how are points 4 & 5 significantly different to points 2 & 3?

In point 6, what do you mean by “ex. Water”?

If point 8 is true, then point 9 should say that something unchanging must be outside of time, or operates in a timeless state, not that it is eternal (meaning ‘lasting for all time’). This suggests that the unchanging thing cannot exist or operate within time. I’m not sure if that’s what you want to imply.

Point 23 is a summary. ‘All powerful’ seems to come from point 15, but point 15 seems only to establish that the unchanging thing has some power. ‘Eternal’ seems to come from point 9, which I have addressed above. ‘Perfect’ seems to come from point 12, but we need to be clear that this refers to the definition of the word as used by Thomas Aquinas, not the normal everyday meaning of perfect. ‘Omnibenevolent’ presumably comes from point 17, but this refers to the definition of good as used by Thomas Aquinas and so is not equivalent to benevolence.

I don’t understand point 13. I don’t see how it precludes the possibility of more than one unchanging actualiser.

Point 6 establishes that something is needed to start off the chain of changes. But the wording of points 19, 21 and 22 suggests to me that this unchanging actualiser causes things that have come into being after this initial start. Is this your assertion? Or did the unchanging actualiser start off the chain of events and other things (concrete things, intelligent beings) come into being as a result of the chain of changes?

On point 5 I did mean that things require something to stop them from changing forms. The ex. Water was a reminder to me to try to illustrate the idea by using water as an example. Thank you on point 8 for the correction on terminology in point 9 and point 17. On point 13 I was saying that since something that is pure actuality would have actualized all its potentials, if there were a 2 or more beings of pure actuality they would all be undifferentiable. In other words there would be no features that one had but not the others that would allow us to tell them apart. I was attempting to show that at any given moment in time there would have to be something actualizing any given objects potential to exist. How do you think I could say that more clearly?