S
SeekingCatholic
Guest
Though a believer in God, I am not convinced by the Five Ways of Aquinas.
I’ll begin with the first two: argument from motion and argument from efficient cause. I’ll agree with the general points that nothing can be brought from potency into act except by something else already in act and that nothing can be the cause of itself.
It’s where the proof attempts to argue against the possibility of an infinite regress that things get murky. I’ll also agree that a hierarchically subordinated (per se) infinite regress is absurd. However, no examples of such in nature have been shown. And such is necessary for the first two ways to be successful as empirical proofs.
The classical distinction made between per se and per accidens subordination of a series is a man being able to generate because he is a man, rather than the son of a man. This makes the series only accidentally subordinated. If instead he were able to generate only and specifically because he was the son of a man, this would indeed be a hierarchically subordinated series.
Or, put more abstractly, to have a hierarchically subordinated series from motion it’s necessary to have, not only object A necessary to move object B from potency to act, but also object A necessary to keep it there. To have a hierarchically subordinated series from cause it’s necessary to have, not only object A necessary to cause object B’s original existence, but to keep object B in existence.
Also, at some level, given the fact that the cause or source of motion of certain objects (e.g. a snowflake) can legitimately held to be the physical laws of the universe, it seems any kind of philosophical proof will need to demand a cause or reason for the laws of the universe.
I’ll begin with the first two: argument from motion and argument from efficient cause. I’ll agree with the general points that nothing can be brought from potency into act except by something else already in act and that nothing can be the cause of itself.
It’s where the proof attempts to argue against the possibility of an infinite regress that things get murky. I’ll also agree that a hierarchically subordinated (per se) infinite regress is absurd. However, no examples of such in nature have been shown. And such is necessary for the first two ways to be successful as empirical proofs.
The classical distinction made between per se and per accidens subordination of a series is a man being able to generate because he is a man, rather than the son of a man. This makes the series only accidentally subordinated. If instead he were able to generate only and specifically because he was the son of a man, this would indeed be a hierarchically subordinated series.
Or, put more abstractly, to have a hierarchically subordinated series from motion it’s necessary to have, not only object A necessary to move object B from potency to act, but also object A necessary to keep it there. To have a hierarchically subordinated series from cause it’s necessary to have, not only object A necessary to cause object B’s original existence, but to keep object B in existence.
Also, at some level, given the fact that the cause or source of motion of certain objects (e.g. a snowflake) can legitimately held to be the physical laws of the universe, it seems any kind of philosophical proof will need to demand a cause or reason for the laws of the universe.