Being!

[Shike]

Of course I reject Aquinas’ 1st way. For the simple reason that such God cannot create anything at all.

Usually when someone rejects an argument they point to an invalid step of reasoning, a false premise, or an ambiguous term. Yes, your claim that such a being could not create is in direct opposition to Aquinas’ 1st Way, but it is only a shell of a response. It still remains for you to p(name removed by moderator)oint the problem in Aquinas’ 1st Way by pointing out an ambiguous term, a false premise, or an invalid step in reasoning.

I suppose, though, that I could spell out your assertion in clearer terms, if you wish: you think exercising a power (in this case creating) requires the agent to be modified (receive some actuality) in some way–call it Belorg’s principle of causal modification. You think it is a universal and necessary principle, I do not.

And why?

Because it is the conclusion of Aquinas’ 1st Way that means as much.

It may be logically valid, but that does not mean too much, and its premises cannot be proven to be true.

Not only is the argument logically valid, but it would be either absurd or a contradiction to reject the premises as false. To reject that change occurs is absurd. To think that something can be self-moved in the relevant sense (dealing with the principles of potency and act) is a contradiction. Let’s not contemplate those who reject both.

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.

And of course, I do. One way of defending it is holding that Aquinas’ 1st Way is sound and also that the world around us exists. From such a perspective, the most weight your claim has is that of a paradox. Furthermore, your principle of causal modification would be a sad instance of Hume-ian induction, if anything.

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.

Properly speaking, conclusions are either true or false. Arguments are either invalid, merely valid, or sound. You are playing the numbers game and it is silly. I could cite many people throughout history that defend the 1st Way. What of it? No, you must point out an ambiguous term, a false premise, or an invalid step of reasoning. Nothing else will satisfy.

You mean you prefer to discuss this with people who agree with you. Well, there wouldn’t be much to discuss, would there?

I am willing to discuss it with anybody, at least for a time. But your insinuation is false: you can learn many things from those who agree with you.

I think all of this boils down to whether the 1st Way is sound. So I will be waiting for someone to proffer an ambiguous term, a false premise, or an invalid step of reasoning.

 

[Shike]

For the sake of everybody else 2 does follow from 1 if you understand my argument in the context of what makes a thing real (Existential Cause) as opposed to secondary causes which are all a conjoining of act and potential and are therefore not that which makes a thing real.

Hey Linux, just want to point out that the term “potential” is not the same as the principle of potency/potentiality. Capacity is not the same as the principle of potency because capacity usually includes both principles of act and potency.

I haven’t payed too close of attention to what you are saying, so I can’t give much more advice.

Perhaps you mean the conjoining of essence and act of being instead?

 

[Shike]

It means that the isness of God has a potentiality to be conjoined and that this potentiality can be actualized or not, depending on God’s free will.
But the Thomist God has no potential, so He is either necessarily conjoined or necessarily non-conjoined.

This illustrates the same kind of misuse of the terms, Linux. Here Belorg is confusing the terms potential and the principle of potentiality. They are not the same. Thinking that they are can logically lead to the very same point that Belorg keeps bringing up, namely, that to create requires change, or rather as I call it, Belorg’s principle of causal modification.

 

[Shike]

That has nothing to do with it. What is imporatnt is that God is sen as the creator of the universe, which means there is an ontological state at which God is sans the universe. And I do not mean a temporal state.

At most what an ontological state could mean here is a distinction between Creator and creation.

Also:

Well, here you admit that a prefct unchanging act has to exist. So non-conjoined being is an ontologucal state and my objection stands.

I wouldn’t attach a state to something that doesn’t exist. At most it is short hand for saying that God exists separate from creation the effect.

 

[Linux]

Why do you keep on discussing something you clearly do not understand?

Whoa!! I was thinking the same thing about you. Perhaps we are twins.

 

[Linux]

Hey Linux, just want to point out that the term “potential” is not the same as the principle of potency/potentiality.

Why? Is not the potential for something to be the same as potentiality?

Perhaps you mean the conjoining of essence and act of being instead?

Yes that is what I mean by the conjoining of act and potential. By potential I meant it to be short hand for “potential nature” or state. The actuality of that nature or state is like you said “the reduction of potency to act.” I can see how that might have not been clear.

 

[Linux]

This illustrates the same kind of misuse of the terms, Linux. Here Belorg is confusing the terms potential and the principle of potentiality. They are not the same. Thinking that they are can logically lead to the very same point that Belorg keeps bringing up, namely, that to create requires change, or rather as I call it, Belorg’s principle of causal modification.

I see what you mean here. There are two ways of speaking about potentiality. The potential for something to exist, and the actuality of potency? I am not sure the distinction will help him to understand. The reduction of potency to act does sound as if there one is implying a change from state to another. Would it not be better to say that the actuality of potency can be simultaneous?

 

[Shike]

Yes that is what I mean by the conjoining of act and potential. By potential I meant it to be short hand for “potential nature” or state. The actuality of that nature or state is like you said “the reduction of potency to act.” I can see how that might have not been clear.

Sure, I think I get at what you are saying. For example, say you have an architect that thinks of a house in all its details and then realizes that plan by building it. What you call potential nature could be likened to the plan in the architect’s head and the actuality of that plan is the real house. In this case, such an example requires change, and therefore it requires the reduction of potency/potentiality to act/actuality.

Basically, the principles of act/actuality and potency/potentiality are very specific principles required for any change, in theory (or possible world if you prefer), to come about. These principles shouldn’t be confused with potential/capacity, as they are much more metaphysical and fundamental. A capacity is a power to do something, to effect a change, whereas the principles of act/actuality and potency/potentiality are principles that help make up the fabric of any change whatsoever.

I see what you mean here. There are two ways of speaking about potentiality. The potential for something to exist, and the actuality of potency? I am not sure the distinction will help him to understand. The reduction of potency to act does sound as if there one is implying a change from state to another. Would it not be better to say that the actuality of potency can be simultaneous?

At least in the last few posts of yours that I have been reading and this quote, it seems like you are talking only about potential and not the aristotelian principles of act/actuality and potency/potentiality.

You are probably right that you can talk about the potential for something to exist and the process of something potential actually coming into existence, but it seems like at a much broader level than the aristotelian principles just mentioned. Further, you are absolutely correct that the reduction of potency to act sounds like there is a change involved… in fact, the principles are part of the very definition of change.

Please do ask questions especially if I am unclear on any point.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Then you shoukld reread my posts.

This should have been a simple transaction. I asked, you cited. Is their a reason you cannot cite your argument?

 

[belorg]

This should have been a simple transaction. I asked, you cited. Is their a reason you cannot cite your argument?

I **can ** cite my ]argument, but I do not feel like repeating the same things over and over again.

 

[belorg]

This illustrates the same kind of misuse of the terms, Linux. Here Belorg is confusing the terms potential and the principle of potentiality. They are not the same. Thinking that they are can logically lead to the very same point that Belorg keeps bringing up, namely, that to create requires change, or rather as I call it, Belorg’s principle of causal modification.

Look, Shike, if there is a difference between two possible states of God, then going from one state to another is a change.
If reality at one stage is immutable then it cannot be changing at any other stage.
God is the only necessary being, so there is an ontological state in which God is the whole of reality. The whole of reality is immutable. There is no logically possible way to get from an immutable reality to changing reality unless this second type of realiy exists completely independent from the first, in which case the first cannot be the cause of the second.

 

[belorg]

At most what an ontological state could mean here is a distinction between Creator and creation.

Also:

I wouldn’t attach a state to something that doesn’t exist. At most it is short hand for saying that God exists separate from creation the effect.

It’s not “shorthand”, it is an ontological analysis of what iy means for God to be separate from His creation.

 

[Sair]

Look, Shike, if there is a difference between two possible states of God, then going from one state to another is a change.
If reality at one stage is immutable then it cannot be changing at any other stage.
God is the only necessary being, so there is an ontological state in which God is the whole of reality. The whole of reality is immutable. There is no logically possible way to get from an immutable reality to changing reality unless this second type of realiy exists completely independent from the first, in which case the first cannot be the cause of the second.

I have to say that the more I see of arguments purporting to show that God is a ‘necessary’ being who is ‘immutable’ yet ‘creative’ and all the other attributes he is supposed to have, the more it reminds me of the games my friends and I used to invent as children, when it was just really easy to say - at any point in the game - “Let’s make it that this character has these abilities,” without ever having any need to consider the implications of those abilities…

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I **can ** cite my ]argument, but I do not feel like repeating the same things over and over again.

Surely cut and paste is not too hard to do and if it is then you could cite the source by post number. Surely you can see that this refusal to do the routine thing appears to others as an excuse because you have not actually made a formal argument to be examined. It seems most likely that you have offered a series of objections over many posts and now consider them an argument. Is that the case?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Look, Shike, if there is a difference between two possible states of God, then going from one state to another is a change.
If reality at one stage is immutable then it cannot be changing at any other stage.
God is the only necessary being, so there is an ontological state in which God is the whole of reality. The whole of reality is immutable. There is no logically possible way to get from an immutable reality to changing reality unless this second type of realiy exists completely independent from the first, in which case the first cannot be the cause of the second.

Why do you keep ignoring the refutation of this argument? Your use of “states” and 'stages" is entirely a reflection of your empirical experience. You aren’t finding a contradiction, you’re committing a fallacy of incredulity. Even worse, you don’t need to imagine a scenario yourself as we have explained this several times. Repeating the same argument after ignoring the refutation makes me wonder if you are interested in learning or just trying to bash G-d. If it’s to learn then either acknowledge the truth of the refutation or offer a counter argument too it. If it’s too bash G-d, then give it up already. Spoiler alert. G-d wins. Specifically He lets secular people contracept, abort, and engage in non productive sexual activities. The secular birth rate is now less than the replacement rate. You can’t win, no matter what you do. Darwin is ruthless to the sexually amoral. “Brights” my patootie. lol

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I have to say that the more I see of arguments purporting to show that God is a ‘necessary’ being who is ‘immutable’ yet ‘creative’ and all the other attributes he is supposed to have, the more it reminds me of the games my friends and I used to invent as children, when it was just really easy to say - at any point in the game - “Let’s make it that this character has these abilities,” without ever having any need to consider the implications of those abilities…

Feel free to post those implications you find disturbing.

 

[Shike]

Look, Shike, if there is a difference between two possible states of God, then going from one state to another is a change.

Yes, I suppose so, that if God has possible states then going from one to the other is a change.

If reality at one stage is immutable then it cannot be changing at any other stage.

Basically, and I must come back to it yet again, change requires modification of the agent. Therefore, using univocal language, and of course after establishing the truth of Aquinas’ 1st Way, we cannot say that God changes. You might (and I’m not sure, here) be able to get away with saying that God changes if you were using analogical language while at the same time holding the truth that God doesn’t need to modified to create, nor cannot be modified.
All these considerations are further explorations of the conclusion of Aquinas’ 1st Way. And as Belorg takes issue with the 1st Way, it is about time that an ambiguous term, a false premise, or an invalid step of reasoning be presented.

God is the only necessary being, so there is an ontological state in which God is the whole of reality. The whole of reality is immutable. There is no logically possible way to get from an immutable reality to changing reality unless this second type of realiy exists completely independent from the first, in which case the first cannot be the cause of the second.

First, God is not the only necessary being. He is the only being whose necessity isn’t derived (and of course this depends somewhat on your definitions because Aquinas is concerned with an ontological necessity rather than a strictly logical necessity, though that is also true–using possible worlds stuff can be misleading).
Second, using ontological analysis will only give us a state where God and creation exist. To do what you’re doing would be to subject a categorically atemporal being to time, however the much you protest that you do no such thing.
Third, for your reasoning to be valid, keeping it atemporal as you say you do, you would have to say that it is not possible for changing reality to exist at all. Why? Because you keep insisting that you are doing ontological analysis that is irrelevant to time. If that were the case, there would be nothing you could exclude from reality, which would mean that state 1 is all of reality, including anything temporal, past present and future. Now you say state 1 is immutable… ergo no other state is possible.
Ontological analysis is not being done here. Rather, logical analysis that is subjecting a categorically atemporal being under temporal considerations.

I think the fruitful thing to do here is to critique Aquinas’ 1st Way and find an ambiguous term, a false premise, or an invalid step of reasoning. Please: I am always interested in hearing the critiques of others on Aquinas’ arguments for the existence of God.

 

[Linux]

Feel free to post those implications you find disturbing.

He has none.

 

[Linux]

I think the fruitful thing to do here is to critique Aquinas’ 1st Way and find an ambiguous term, a false premise, or an invalid step of reasoning. Please: I am always interested in hearing the critiques of others on Aquinas’ arguments for the existence of God.

I would say, further to your statement, that unless he can metaphysically demonstrate that potency can become actual by itself, then he has to accept that the first cause exists and cannot possibly be in and of itself a conjoining of existence and potency.

 

[belorg]

Surely cut and paste is not too hard to do and if it is then you could cite the source by post number. Surely you can see that this refusal to do the routine thing appears to others as an excuse because you have not actually made a formal argument to be examined. It seems most likely that you have offered a series of objections over many posts and now consider them an argument. Is that the case?

I have offered a series of objections and I have argued why these objections hold. I have not offered a formal argument here, but if you read my objections, you know my argument and you can try to refute it is you like.