Numbers are irrelevant. And also, if I were a betting man I’d say you are blowing a lot of smoke and that you have no numbers.
Then your position is clarified, you must reject Aquinas’ 1st Way. It does not prevent you, however, from understanding the argument (which includes the conclusion that God cannot change). And it most certainly does not justify the following remark of yours: Moving on…
Of course I reject Aquinas’ 1st way. For the simple reason that such God cannot create anything at all.
It is most certainly logically valid and each premise is true, if that’s what you’re getting at. And that seems to meet the modern criteria just fine.
It may be logically valid, but that does not mean too much, and its premises cannot be proven to be true.
Usually the way it goes is someone presents a contradiction and another attempts to disarm it. Think very carefully about what you just said and what you are asking me to do.
I am asking you to defend your claims, Shike, that’s all. You are the one making a positive claim that creation without change is possible. You should be able to defend this claim.
Perhaps you should re-read the exchanges so far in this thread. Anyways, there are various levels of detail one can go into, depending on how humble and patient the other party is. I’ll give it again:
- The definition of change is the reduction of potency to act, or, good enough for present purposes, change requires an aspect of receptivity.
- The argument from Aquinas’ 1st Way gives the sound conclusion that there is a Being that is Pure act, or the source of all potency to act reductions.
- Therefore change cannot apply to such a Being.
And this being cannot create anything. So, wheter it exists or not is not relevant. It most certainly isn’t the creator of changing reality. Aristotle realized this, Shike, and that is why Aristitle believed the universe was eternal and uncreated.
If you understand points 1 and 2, then you will see how 3 follows. Whether or not you think they are true is another question.
I do see any reason to think the 1st way’s conclusions are sound. And, lots of contemporary philosophers, including Catholics, agree with me. So, regardless of ‘numbers’ , your premsie 2 is
an opinion, nothing more.
Now the floor is open to you, or, preferably someone else to ask respectful questions in the hope of understanding something one didn’t before.
You mean you prefer to discuss this with people who agree with you. Well, there wouldn’t be much to discuss, would there?
