How does God move the world?

[Linusthe2nd]

In proving the existence of God, Thomas Aquinas teaches that the way of motion is the most manifest way by which the existence of God may be proven and he points to Aristotle as his authority, because this is the way that Aristotle proved the existence of God.

So, it is only natural to ask how exactly God does move the world? Surely, God is not directly pushing everything around as a man would be pushing a rock, causing it to move? For Thomas tells us God does not deprive natural things of their natural causality. So how does God move things. which Thomas tells us move themselves and also move other things? It seems like a contradiction. But Thomas also tells us that God uses creatures as instrumental causes of motion/change. Thus God is the Prime Mover, creatures are secondary or instrumental causes. So, how does this work?

First of all God creates all creatures, everything that exists, that ever existed, or which will exist, both the material creatures, animate and inanimate, and the spiritual. This itself is a movement, a movement from a potentially existing world and an actually existing world. But it is a movement without change, it is a creation. And when God creates them he gives them a nature through which creatures move both themselves and other creatures. both to their natural and their supernatual ends. In other words God has a plan which we call his Providence and he has designed the nature of creatures to carry out this plan. So God moves his creatures, first by creating them, and, secondly, by giving them the power to move both themselves and others.

What about the heavenly bodies or the natural forces of the universe, the weather systems, the echo systems? The answer is the same. Either they move themselves according to God’s Providential Plan or they are moved by angels. If not that, then they are moved directly by God. Book 3, Part 1, of the Summa Contra Gentiles, chapters 16 - 25 explains the various ways God moves creatures to their proper end.

dhspriory.org/thomas/english/ContraGentiles3a.htm

And even if a creature is not moving, it is being sustained in existnece directly by God. And this in itself is a kind of movement. For God is acting directly on every creature, sustaining it in existence, causing it ’ to be, ’ and the creature is exercising its act of existence. and to act is type of motion.

And these are the ways God moves the world.

Linus2nd

 

[Aloysium]

The universe isn’t like a weather/ecological system, churning and going nowhere. Perhaps the short of it is that He calls and through us, creation moves to seek final fulfillment in union with Him.

 

[Tomdstone]

So, it is only natural to ask how exactly God does move the world?

Through the force of gravity.

 

[Latinitas]

In proving the existence of God, Thomas Aquinas teaches that the way of motion is the most manifest way by which the existence of God may be proven and he points to Aristotle as his authority, because this is the way that Aristotle proved the existence of God.

So, it is only natural to ask how exactly God does move the world? Surely, God is not directly pushing everything around as a man would be pushing a rock, causing it to move? For Thomas tells us God does not deprive natural things of their natural causality. So how does God move things. which Thomas tells us move themselves and also move other things? It seems like a contradiction. But Thomas also tells us that God uses creatures as instrumental causes of motion/change. Thus God is the Prime Mover, creatures are secondary or instrumental causes. So, how does this work?

First of all God creates all creatures, everything that exists, that ever existed, or which will exist, both the material creatures, animate and inanimate, and the spiritual. This itself is a movement, a movement from a potentially existing world and an actually existing world. But it is a movement without change, it is a creation. And when God creates them he gives them a nature through which creatures move both themselves and other creatures. both to their natural and their supernatual ends. In other words God has a plan which we call his Providence and he has designed the nature of creatures to carry out this plan. So God moves his creatures, first by creating them, and, secondly, by giving them the power to move both themselves and others.

What about the heavenly bodies or the natural forces of the universe, the weather systems, the echo systems? The answer is the same. Either they move themselves according to God’s Providential Plan or they are moved by angels. If not that, then they are moved directly by God. Book 3, Part 1, of the Summa Contra Gentiles, chapters 16 - 25 explains the various ways God moves creatures to their proper end.

dhspriory.org/thomas/english/ContraGentiles3a.htm

And even if a creature is not moving, it is being sustained in existnece directly by God. And this in itself is a kind of movement. For God is acting directly on every creature, sustaining it in existence, causing it ’ to be, ’ and the creature is exercising its act of existence. and to act is type of motion.

And these are the ways God moves the world.

Linus2nd

Well, the way God operates and governs is very mysterious. Providence is in many ways beyond our knowledge.

I leave it that.

Sorry I couldn’t help you more,
Benedicat Deus,
Latinitas

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Through the force of gravity.

And there may be more truth to that than you think. But how is the " force of gravity " moved and directed and governed, and to what end? Are you saying that the " force of gravity " is part of God’s Providence?

Linus2nd

 

[Tomdstone]

Are you saying that the " force of gravity " is part of God’s Providence?

The force of gravity is part of His power.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

The force of gravity is part of His power.

I would say rather that it is one of the means by which he exercises his moving power and Providence.

Linus2nd

 

[oldcelt]

We do not just rotate and orbit the sun, we are also hurtling through space at an incredible speed. This is all a consequence of the initial explosion of creation and the subsequent development of the universe over billions of years. It is not as well ordered as some would like to believe, but a rather chaotic and dangerous environment for life forms as we know them.
youtube.com/watch?v=0jHsq36_NTU

stardate.org/astro-guide/faqs/how-fast-earth-moving-through-space

John

 

[inocente]

What about the heavenly bodies or the natural forces of the universe, the weather systems, the echo systems? The answer is the same. Either they move themselves according to God’s Providential Plan or they are moved by angels. If not that, then they are moved directly by God. Book 3, Part 1, of the Summa Contra Gentiles, chapters 16 - 25 explains the various ways God moves creatures to their proper end.

dhspriory.org/thomas/english/ContraGentiles3a.htm

Unless you have an alternative explanation, then looking at chapter 82 alone, there appear to be a great many errors, and so his conclusions have no basis. To take a few of the more obvious from that chapter:

“But celestial bodies are perfected without any contrariety in their natures, for they are neither light nor heavy, neither hot nor cold.”
Nope, stars are hot. Very very hot.

“for there is nothing contrary to the circular motion of the celestial bodies, and, consequently, there can be no violence in regard to them; but there are contraries to the motion of lower bodies, namely, downward motion as opposed to upward motion.”
Nope, there are no celestial spheres and us lower bodies are not contrary in falling.

“But celestial bodies are more like intellectual substances than are other bodies because the former are incorruptible”
Nope. Sweetly romantic but nope.

“Furthermore, the first source of motion must be something immutable. So, the things that are nearest to immutability should be movers of the rest. But celestial bodies approach more closely to the immutability of the first source than do lower bodies, for they are not moved except by one kind of motion, namely, local motion;”
Nope, God doesn’t live beyond the starry canopy, as that’s relative to the galaxy we happen to find ourselves in.

“Thirdly, because only the motion of the heavens is found always to be regular and uniform, for in the case of the natural motions of heavy and light things there is an increase in velocity toward the end; in the case of violent motion, there is an increase in retardation. So, the motion of the heavens must be the cause of all other motions.”
Nope. Yon celestial spheres again.

*“Now, the celestial bodies, alone among bodily things, are inalterable; their condition shows this, for it is always the same. So, the celestial body is the cause of all alteration in things that are changed by alteration.” *
Without a telescope he never noticed any changes, and drew a false conclusion.

“Thus, it is evident that lower bodies are ruled by God through the celestial bodies.”
Or, to put it another way, nope.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Unless you have an alternative explanation, then looking at chapter 82 alone, there appear to be a great many errors, and so his conclusions have no basis. To take a few of the more obvious from that chapter:

“But celestial bodies are perfected without any contrariety in their natures, for they are neither light nor heavy, neither hot nor cold.”
Nope, stars are hot. Very very hot.

“for there is nothing contrary to the circular motion of the celestial bodies, and, consequently, there can be no violence in regard to them; but there are contraries to the motion of lower bodies, namely, downward motion as opposed to upward motion.”
Nope, there are no celestial spheres and us lower bodies are not contrary in falling.

“But celestial bodies are more like intellectual substances than are other bodies because the former are incorruptible”
Nope. Sweetly romantic but nope.

“Furthermore, the first source of motion must be something immutable. So, the things that are nearest to immutability should be movers of the rest. But celestial bodies approach more closely to the immutability of the first source than do lower bodies, for they are not moved except by one kind of motion, namely, local motion;”
Nope, God doesn’t live beyond the starry canopy, as that’s relative to the galaxy we happen to find ourselves in.

“Thirdly, because only the motion of the heavens is found always to be regular and uniform, for in the case of the natural motions of heavy and light things there is an increase in velocity toward the end; in the case of violent motion, there is an increase in retardation. So, the motion of the heavens must be the cause of all other motions.”
Nope. Yon celestial spheres again.

*“Now, the celestial bodies, alone among bodily things, are inalterable; their condition shows this, for it is always the same. So, the celestial body is the cause of all alteration in things that are changed by alteration.” *
Without a telescope he never noticed any changes, and drew a false conclusion.

“Thus, it is evident that lower bodies are ruled by God through the celestial bodies.”
Or, to put it another way, nope.

You are absolutely right. Still, that does not detract from the argument. All that happens is that we move directly from the things of this world directly to God as the cause of their being and the cause of their motion/change through the natures he created them with. And of course, we cannot disallow that God may, probably does, take a direct hand in some instances. That is as far as philosophy can take us.

However once we have access to faith, it is not far fetched that angels could be playing a real part in the governance of the universe, moving planets, weather systems, etc. We do know by faith that angels serve as God’s messanges and the Catholic Church has always taught that each of us has a good angel, and probably a bad one as well, and it is even thought that nations have their own angels ( witness the angels trying to convince Cyrus to invade Babylon.)
Linus2nd.

Linus2nd

 

[Latias]

However once we have access to faith, it is not far fetched that angels could be playing a real part in the governance of the universe, moving planets, weather systems, etc. We do know by faith that angels serve as God’s messanges and the Catholic Church has always taught that each of us has a good angel, and probably a bad one as well, and it is even thought that nations have their own angels ( witness the angels trying to convince Cyrus to invade Babylon.)
Linus2nd.

Linus2nd

So would you reasonably consider the hypothesis that angels are responsible for the accelerated expansion of the universe, involved in “anomalous” galaxy rotation curves (essentially acting as “dark matter”), or contribute to the Pioneer anomaly?

 

[Tomdstone]

So would you reasonably consider the hypothesis that angels are responsible for the accelerated expansion of the universe, involved in “anomalous” galaxy rotation curves (essentially acting as “dark matter”), or contribute to the Pioneer anomaly?

Could angels be responsible for the ocean tides? Perhaps it is the bad angels who are responsible for the harm done by tidal wave storms? This seems somewhat unscientific to me.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

So would you reasonably consider the hypothesis that angels are responsible for the accelerated expansion of the universe, involved in “anomalous” galaxy rotation curves (essentially acting as “dark matter”), or contribute to the Pioneer anomaly?

Well, why not. Thomas Aquinas certainly thought something like that. We cannot prove it of course, it is merely speculation. But if God used angels as his messagers and if he has given each of us a guardian angel, why wouldn’t he use them to help carry out his Plan of Providence? Sorry, I don’t know what the " Pioneer anomaly " is.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Could angels be responsible for the ocean tides? Perhaps it is the bad angels who are responsible for the harm done by tidal wave storms? This seems somewhat unscientific to me.

Gee whiz! Don’t be a killjoy, does science have to butt in every where? Can’t there be a few mysteries? Let God have a secret or two.

Linus2nd

 

[inocente]

You are absolutely right. Still, that does not detract from the argument. All that happens is that we move directly from the things of this world directly to God as the cause of their being and the cause of their motion/change through the natures he created them with. And of course, we cannot disallow that God may, probably does, take a direct hand in some instances. That is as far as philosophy can take us.

But an argument based on false premises is bad philosophy - surely he gives us no reason to accept any of his conclusions.

However once we have access to faith, it is not far fetched that angels could be playing a real part in the governance of the universe, moving planets, weather systems, etc. We do know by faith that angels serve as God’s messanges and the Catholic Church has always taught that each of us has a good angel, and probably a bad one as well, and it is even thought that nations have their own angels ( witness the angels trying to convince Cyrus to invade Babylon.)

I think it is far fetched, for the simple reason that planets, etc., always move in predictable ways, in the patterns we call laws. If they were moved by angels, the angels would have to move them in precisely the way predicted by those laws, down to several decimal places. And that would mean that God was playing games with us, deceiving us into thinking nature behaves according to laws when it doesn’t.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

But an argument based on false premises is bad philosophy - surely he gives us no reason to accept any of his conclusions.

It was regarded as good philosophy until early in the 17th century. Since then philosophers just drop off the Celestial movers and go directly to God as the Prime Mover.

I think it is far fetched, for the simple reason that planets, etc., always move in predictable ways, in the patterns we call laws. If they were moved by angels, the angels would have to move them in precisely the way predicted by those laws, down to several decimal places. And that would mean that God was playing games with us, deceiving us into thinking nature behaves according to laws when it doesn’t.

And why couldn’t angels move the world’s systems according to God’s laws, which would be the laws of God’s eternal Plan? But if not, it is God who makes the laws by which nature moves substances and systems according to their natures. In other words, the natural laws are not " tracks in the sky " which substances and systems move as on a track, they are laws built into their natures, Either way it is God who is the Prime Mover.

You certainly aren’t suggesting that the universe moves and changes without any (name removed by moderator)ut by God?

Linus2nd

 

[Nixbits]

Linusthe2nd:

the Catholic Church has always taught that each of us has a good angel, and probably a bad one as well, and it is even thought that nations have their own angels

Really? I don’t remember being taught that during my Catholic education.

 

[inocente]

It was regarded as good philosophy until early in the 17th century. Since then philosophers just drop off the Celestial movers and go directly to God as the Prime Mover.

Then that’s another argument.

And why couldn’t angels move the world’s systems according to God’s laws, which would be the laws of God’s eternal Plan? But if not, it is God who makes the laws by which nature moves substances and systems according to their natures. In other words, the natural laws are not " tracks in the sky " which substances and systems move as on a track, they are laws built into their natures, Either way it is God who is the Prime Mover.

I guess if you wish you can think of inertia and electricity and nuclear fusion and so on as the actions of angels. Every ray of light leaving the Sun pushed along by its own angel in an exact straight line at exactly the right speed. Gazillions of angels continuously producing the illusion that everything works by itself. But God would have to be exceptionally incompetent, and it’s not what scripture says. “Let there be light”, not “Let there be angels to make light”.

You certainly aren’t suggesting that the universe moves and changes without any (name removed by moderator)ut by God?

Yes I am. I don’t think you’ll find many Christians who believe God has to micromanage every detail of the entire universe like a demented plate juggler. God is almighty. Surely to think otherwise, in the words of a certain philosopher, is straw.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Really? I don’t remember being taught that during my Catholic education.

CCC " 336 From infancy to death human life is surrounded by their watchful care and intercession.202 "Beside each believer stands an angel as protector and shepherd leading him to life."203 Already here on earth the Christian life shares by faith in the blessed company of angels and men united in God. "

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Then that’s another argument.

Not really. The argument from motion was first proposed by Aristotle. But if you read it as given in the S.C.G., it is given according to Thomas’ interpretation. He accepted the idea of Aristotle that " intelligences " moved the " heavens ", which in turn moved the " lower " world. But these " intelligences " were interpreted by Thomas as angels. And this was perfectly in accord with the thinking of the Greeks and the Muslims and Jews of the day. But by reading Thomas’ commentary on the Physics and On the Heavens, he accepts this interpretation only provisionally, saying, " But who knows that at some future time there may be another explanation for the movement of the heavens. " ( paraphrased ).

" Of these ways the first is as follows. Everything that is moved is moved by another. That some things are in motion—for example, the sun—is evident from sense. Therefore, it is moved by something else that moves it. This mover is itself either moved or not moved. If it is not, we have reached our conclusion—namely, that we must posit some unmoved mover. This we call God. If it is moved, it is moved by another mover. We must, consequently, either proceed to infinity, or we must arrive at some unmoved mover. Now, it is not possible to proceed to infinity. Hence, we must posit some prime unmoved mover. "

So Thomas, when he says that the sun must be moved by something that moves it…and if not, we have reached our conclusion…, " is in effect stating a conditional. That is: if the sun is not moved by another mover ( one of the heavenly intelligences or angels ), then it is moved directly by God.

So the argument is valid, even today, as it stands, because Thomas has allowed that the sun ( and other heavenly bodies by extension ) may not be moved by any other created being, but by God directly.

I guess if you wish you can think of inertia and electricity and nuclear fusion and so on as the actions of angels.

Not what I implied at all. I said that, either these motions/activities/changes either move/act strictly according to the " intentionality " God has put into the nature of things or they are, in some way, moved/governed by angels or by God directly. It was, however, the opinion of Thomas that, generally, the things of this world, at least, are moved by the natures that God gave them, but that angels moved the heavens and also made sure the things of this lower world ( weather systems, the powers of energy, etc. perhaps ) moved according to God’s plan.

Every ray of light leaving the Sun pushed along by its own angel in an exact straight line at exactly the right speed. Gazillions of angels continuously producing the illusion that everything works by itself.

Well, that’s pretty extreme, but it is certainly possible that by an act of will the angels could move many such systems. After all, the angels are extremely powerful creatures, next only to God himself. So there wouldn’t have to be " Gazillions " of them. And we do know that God did create " legions, " and these legions could actually be " Gazillions. " Who knows?

But God would have to be exceptionally incompetent, and it’s not what scripture says. “Let there be light”, not “Let there be angels to make light”

I don’t see why this would make God " exceptionally incompetent. " If he created the angels with the power, intelligence, and will to carry out his Plan, how does that make God incompetent. I would say, rather, that it rebounds to His Glory.

And it was God who created the light. Only God can create. The angels only have the power to move, change, and influence, they cannot create anything…

Yes I am. I don’t think you’ll find many Christians who believe God has to micromanage every detail of the entire universe like a demented plate juggler. God is almighty. Surely to think otherwise, in the words of a certain philosopher, is straw.

The scenario I have outlined does not entail micromanaging. Nor can one find such a notion in Aquinas. This notion is something from your own imagination. Thomas makes it clear that God does not deprive creatures of their own legitimate causality. But whatever they do is done according to the God’s Providental Plan, most of which has been " programed " into the natures he gave them. I hope you are not thinking that God created the world with no Plan and/or without a means by which this Plan should be carried out, just as he willed it.

Very interestiong, I think. Good observations.

Linus2nd