How do Cosmological Arguments/Aquinas' Ways prove a *Personal* God?

[RealisticCatholic]

…Or, in other words, “God” at all — rather than merely pointing to a most fundamental reality, which could very well lack intelligence and will?

The traditional cosmological arguments from change, contingency, and causation do well to prove an unconditioned reality or “First Cause” or most fundamental reality that exists necessarily.

My question is this: Considering that even many atheists would accept that there is some most fundamental reality (whether something physical or something yet to be discovered), why should we think these arguments point to an intentional First Cause? Or a First Cause with knowledge and will?

 

[adamhovey1988]

It’s difficult for me to answer this question because I don’t know what kind of evidence you’re looking for.

 

[RealisticCatholic]

Aquinas and other Thomists, as well as many Christians and theists in general, use the cosmological argument to prove that God exists.

But why “God” (someone who intentionally created the Universe) — and not just stop at some mindless fundamental reality who doesn’t really care about his creation (since, after all, there is no “Who” to care in the first place)?

 

[Thom18]

His arguments don’t try to prove who God is, only that He Is (that He exists). Proving that God is “personal” requires other arguments.

 

[Wesrock]

…Or, in other words, “God” at all — rather than merely pointing to a most fundamental reality, which could very well lack intelligence and will?

The traditional cosmological arguments from change, contingency, and causation do well to prove an unconditioned reality or “First Cause” or most fundamental reality that exists necessarily.

My question is this: Considering that even many atheists would accept that there is some most fundamental reality (whether something physical or something yet to be discovered), why should we think these arguments point to an intentional First Cause? Or a First Cause with knowledge and will?

Because the arguments themselves demonstrate and omnipotent, omniscient/knowledgeable, intentional God.

 

[Wesrock]

Aquinas and other Thomists, as well as many Christians and theists in general, use the cosmological argument to prove that God exists.

But why “God” (someone who intentionally created the Universe) — and not just stop at some mindless fundamental reality who doesn’t really care about his creation (since, after all, there is no “Who” to care in the first place)?

Because the arguments don’t stop at a mindless fundamental reality.

 

[Pattylt]

I’m interested in this question as well. While the argument doesn’t lead to a personal God, does it specifically lead to a god or mind? If so, how?

Edit to add: please try to use ordinary English. Some philosophy terms take time to sink in for me! Thanks in advance.

 

[Thom18]

I’m interested in this question as well. While the argument doesn’t lead to a personal God, does it specifically lead to a god or mind? If so, how?

Edit to add: please try to use ordinary English. Some philosophy terms take time to sink in for me! Thanks in advance.

I think that St. Thomas says that his arguments are proofs for what we call God. If a “mind” has the same qualities as God, that could be “proven” as well.

 

[RealisticCatholic]

In themselves, maybe. But I’m meaning to refer to the entire Thomistic tradition and commentary.

For example, if you read a book by Ed Feser, he will go into some detail trying to show how the argument from change (First Way) ends up with a God who is intelligence itself.

Etc.

But also, I believe Aquinas wrote hundreds of pages regarding the nature of God as well.

 

[RealisticCatholic]

So how do they?

Usually brief summaries will show the result is Pure Act, or First Cause.

I have some familiarity. I have a few books by Feser and a few others as well. I could sketch out an attempt to show why the argument from change, for example, leads to a Mind.

But it’s not as direct, and I’m wondering if the path to a Personal God is more direct than I had previously thought.

Again, I could see an atheist going along with the traditional arguments to the extent that they prove an unconditioned reality. But why Mind? etc.

Also, there seems to be a circular reasoning that I see: God can only be a mind, but don’t we have to prove that minds are even immaterial, in the first place?

 

[Wesrock]

Also, there seems to be a circular reasoning that I see: God can only be a mind, but don’t we have to prove that minds are even immaterial, in the first place?

If an immaterial intellect is demonstrated as necessary, then proving that intellects can be immaterial is redundant. But one could of course make a separate philosophy of the mind argument that an intellect is necessarily immaterial based on intentionality, qualia, etc…, so therefore the only way to deny the immaterial would be to deny intellects/minds altogether. Our the reverse, demonstrate that materialism ultimately must reduce to denying the mind, and that to disagree is to be inconsistent (and trying to have one’s cake and eat it, too)

 

[Wesrock]

This is true, but Aquinas does further elaborate on these arguments in other areas and why they lead to the Divine Attributes of unity, omnipotence, omniscience, a free will, etc… The Summa Contra Gentiles, Book 1, does much of this very systematically, but be’s done so elsewhere, too.

Thomists since have continued to present and develop these arguments.

 

[RealisticCatholic]

I didn’t dig too deep into this.

I think what I was going off of was a recent debate by Trent Horn vs. Dan Barker. In the debate, Trent said something like “since the only immaterial things are minds and abstract objects, and abstract objects can’t DO anything, then the First Cause is a mind” (paraphrase).

But of course, Dan Barker wouldn’t even consider minds as immaterial, in the first place, and I don’t think Trent’s argument really worked up to talking about intellects or minds in this way, in the first place. It was just an argument to First Cause/Pure Act.

SO anyway, I think there is a way to get “all of the above,” but it takes careful argumentation and detail. I think many people, slice at the full definition of God, and that “slice” can be examined as problematic if it doesn’t necessarily result in the traditional definition of God completely (as personal, intelligent).

 

[RealisticCatholic]

In other words, Aquinas wouldn’t merely say that everything else about God is merely from Revelation.

If we cannot establish that God is Mind or “Intellect” through reason alone, then we are helpless with the atheist.

But of course, as you say, Aquinas DOES argue for this. Yet some people here seem to think that natural theology doesn’t get that far.

I think what I’m asking about is a more direct way that connects the Five Ways to God as personal. On the one hand, people are saying that they do not (cannot?) establish this. On the other hand, some people are saying further commentary and establish this. What is needed is a consistent approach so that someone looking at the Five Ways can discern that the First Cause is not just some exotic unknown physical reality but a truly “personal” one.

 

[Richca]

Yes, I believe what Thom18 said in his first post is correct, namely, that the five proofs demonstrate the existence of God or a first being which we call God. One needs to keep reading beyond the proofs for the existence of God, Q. 2 in the Summa Theologica, in which St Thomas investigates into the essence or nature of God. He says as much in the introduction before the First Article in Question 2 - The Existence of God.

He says:
'In treating of God there will be a threefold division, for we shall consider: (1) Whatever concerns the Divine Essence; (2) Whatever concerns the distinctions of Persons; (3) Whatever concerns the procession of creatures from Him.

Concerning the Divine Essence, we must consider: (1) Whether God exists? (2) The manner of His existence, or, rather, what is NOT the manner of His existence; (3) Whatever concerns His operations—namely, His knowledge, will, power’.

Question 3 - Of the Simplicity of God is where he begins to investigate point (2) above, the divine essence or the manner of God’s existence. And so in the introduction of Question 3 before the First Article he says:

'When the existence of a thing has been ascertained there remains the further question of the manner of its existence, in order that we may know its essence. Now, because we cannot know what God is, but rather what He is not, we have no means for considering how God is, but rather how He is not.

Therefore, we must consider: (1) How He is not; (2) How He is known by us; (3) How He is named’.

 

[RealisticCatholic]

So when we say God is intellect, or rather, has something analogous to what we call intellect, do we arrive at this fact by first saying what God is not?

 

[IWantGod]

So when we say God is intellect, or rather, has something analogous to what we call intellect, do we arrive at this fact by first saying what God is not?

If we can arrive at the fact that the first cause is not physical, then doesn’t it follow that such a cause, in-order to create physical cause and effect relationships, would have to be something analogous to a mind in-order to be a sufficient cause?

It seems to me that it would have to be for the following reasons.

1. There are no physical cause and effect relationships without the un-caused cause, so the idea of a natural cause is not a viable solution since we cannot resort to ordinary physical explanations like emergent properties for example. Physical reality cannot be considered an emergent property of the un-caused cause.
2. If physical reality doesn’t necessarily exist, and does not naturally arise from the nature of the un-caused-cause, then there is no reason for physical effects to exist at all. in fact it’s impossible unless an intellect with the power to create new natures can determine the reality of physical existence and the natures and powers that it has, because physical existence does not have it’s nature or power naturally. Otherwise only an un-caused necessary being would ever exist because there would be nothing to determine physical reality or new natures. That is to say that physical reality couldn’t be anything more than an artefact precisely because it’s entire nature begins to exist.

It’s seems to me that one only has to show that physical reality as a whole is not a natural property of existence (and is therefore an ontological artefact) in-order to prove that the un-caused cause has an intellect…

 

[Richca]

So when we say God is intellect, or rather, has something analogous to what we call intellect, do we arrive at this fact by first saying what God is not?

IWantGod makes a good point about the first cause not being physical, corporeal, or composed of matter which would be a composite being. Aquinas addresses this point in Question 3 on the Simplicity of God. But, in the fifth proof argument for the existence of God which I think is about final causality to a certain extent, Aquinas already argues that God is an intelligent being taken from the governance of the world.

 

[goout]

…Or, in other words, “God” at all — rather than merely pointing to a most fundamental reality, which could very well lack intelligence and will?

The traditional cosmological arguments from change, contingency, and causation do well to prove an unconditioned reality or “First Cause” or most fundamental reality that exists necessarily.

My question is this: Considering that even many atheists would accept that there is some most fundamental reality (whether something physical or something yet to be discovered), why should we think these arguments point to an intentional First Cause? Or a First Cause with knowledge and will?

What does “personal” mean to you? What are the elements that signify a person exists?

 

[IWantGod]

The traditional cosmological arguments from change, contingency, and causation do well to prove an unconditioned reality or “First Cause” or most fundamental reality that exists necessarily.

Another proof that the uncaused-cause has an intellect becomes evident in the relationship between the uncaused-cause and contingent beings. The un-caused cause doesn’t just cause things into existence, it also conserves the existence of contingent beings, because by themselves they do not have the power to exist. That only makes sense if it is being done intentionally.