How does God move the world?

[oldcelt]

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.

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.

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?

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…

**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

If God did as you propose, then it follows that this programming defeats any notion of free will among his creatures. So, yes, I would propose that God created without a hard and fast plan.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

If God did as you propose, then it follows that this programming defeats any notion of free will among his creatures.

No, he created man’s nature with the ability to be guided by his own counsel. That means he created for each person a spiritual soul endowed with an intellect and free will. God can prod man’s will, so can angels, but, in the end, man is free to follow his own counsel.

So, yes, I would propose that God created without a hard and fast plan.

If that is true, then what was the point of it all? Since God is all wise and all good, we know God has a plan for those things he created. Can you think of what that might be?

Linus2nd

 

[Tom_Baum]

I would say that God moves not only the world but everything in the universe by the applications of scientific laws which are also part of God’s creation.

As far as proving the existence of God in answering how God moves the world, I believe is an exercise in futility since I believe that only God can “prove” that God Is.

 

[Mount_Carmel]

Through the force of gravity.

Hmmn, granted it is a very influential force [the strong and the weak], in the scheme of things, but it is not the everything.

Hawking’s ‘Grand Design’ makes a number of big logical blunders - including the beauty that because ‘there is/was a Law of Gravity, that the universe can spring out of nothing, by itself’. Then we have the ‘Cosmic Bootstrap’ Charlies.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I would say that God moves not only the world but everything in the universe by the applications of scientific laws which are also part of God’s creation

Certainly the laws of the universe are part of God’s plan. But where do these laws reside? You see these laws are nothing but mathematical relationships which exist between various substances and their motions and interactions. They are manifestations of the natures which exist in each substance. It is the nature of each thing which causes it to act or behave in certain ways, directing the motiions and changes of each thing toward a specific end. And from these motions and changes science discovers certain relationshiops between the different substances. And it is these relationships which science calls laws.
.

As far as proving the existence of God in answering how God moves the world, I believe is an exercise in futility since I believe that only God can “prove” that God Is.

Of course I disagree and so did Aristotle and Aquinas and thousands of great thinkers. Still, not everyone can understand the proofs. But everyone who believes in God has his own reasons and some times it is hard to explain what they are. But as long as they satisfy one’s self, that is all that matters. Each person is different and each one thinks differently. Nothing wrong with that.

Linus2nd

 

[ynotzap]

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?

Just as humans can control matter by the use of their rational intelligence, employing the laws of nature, and self-evident principles, angels with superior intelligence infused by God, intuited can use their superior powers (because they share in God’s knowledge and power) move matter not by any physical means,but as pure spirits by spiritual powers of will, and intelligence. Humans have to labor by reasoning and suffer mental fatigue because human spiritual intelligence is extrinsically dependent on matter in it physical mode of existence. Angels are ministers of God involved in the scheme of things, Divine Providence, and they have their special operations.

As for the expansion of the Universe, all created things have the condition of Potency and Act, the capacity to become, to becoming, (movement , change) Expansion involves movement, change. the Universe is experiencing continual change, movement, not that the Universe itself can change eternally but that God will sustain it’s changing state of existence eternally . Water can be ice, ice can be steam, yet it remains matter. These are potential states of matter, there is a constant movement towards the fulfillment of it’s being (towards God)

Along the lines of the flight of space craft (Pioneer l0,11) the minute deceleration of space flight is still being investigated. Thermal radiation forces is being considered as an explanation. As I understand, space craft is surrounded by an ultra high vacuum. As I see it, there is no perfect vacuum (a space with absolutely no matter), I’m inclined to believe that the material universe is a continuum. No separation of matter, but rather a difference in the density and activity of matter, and there is a balance of this relationship. Eg. the more matter the less activity, the more activity the less matter, so the universe is connected by various degrees of mass, and activity. When vacuum is applied to a radio vacuum tube, the electrons operate with least resistance because the outside force is reduced in the the vacuum tube. You can say that matter was expanded and that condition was retained by the vacuum tube shell. Is it possible that outer space is this expanded matter, allowing cosmic radiation (matter in extreme activity)to travel with less resistance. Maybe ploughing through this field of cosmic radiation still gives some resistance to space flight and causes deceleration The space craft is surrounded by ultra high vacuum (a smaller mass, at a high level of activity) Just a thought.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Just as humans can control matter by the use of their rational intelligence, employing the laws of nature, and self-evident principles, angels with superior intelligence infused by God, intuited can use their superior powers (because they share in God’s knowledge and power) move matter not by any physical means,but as pure spirits by spiritual powers of will, and intelligence. Humans have to labor by reasoning and suffer mental fatigue because human spiritual intelligence is extrinsically dependent on matter in it physical mode of existence. Angels are ministers of God involved in the scheme of things, Divine Providence, and they have their special operations.

As for the expansion of the Universe, all created things have the condition of Potency and Act, the capacity to become, to becoming, (movement , change) Expansion involves movement, change. the Universe is experiencing continual change, movement, not that the Universe itself can change eternally but that God will sustain it’s changing state of existence eternally . Water can be ice, ice can be steam, yet it remains matter. These are potential states of matter, there is a constant movement towards the fulfillment of it’s being (towards God)

Along the lines of the flight of space craft (Pioneer l0,11) the minute deceleration of space flight is still being investigated. Thermal radiation forces is being considered as an explanation. As I understand, space craft is surrounded by an ultra high vacuum. As I see it, there is no perfect vacuum (a space with absolutely no matter), I’m inclined to believe that the material universe is a continuum. No separation of matter, but rather a difference in the density and activity of matter, and there is a balance of this relationship. Eg. the more matter the less activity, the more activity the less matter, so the universe is connected by various degrees of mass, and activity. When vacuum is applied to a radio vacuum tube, the electrons operate with least resistance because the outside force is reduced in the the vacuum tube. You can say that matter was expanded and that condition was retained by the vacuum tube shell. Is it possible that outer space is this expanded matter, allowing cosmic radiation (matter in extreme activity)to travel with less resistance. Maybe ploughing through this field of cosmic radiation still gives some resistance to space flight and causes deceleration The space craft is surrounded by ultra high vacuum (a smaller mass, at a high level of activity) Just a thought.

You sold me.

Linus2nd

 

[Nixbits]

Linusthe2nd:

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. "

Curiouser and curiouser. The more I learn about Catholic teaching, the weirder it seems. Do these angels intervene in the physical world? If so, do they do so without infringing on our free-will? The guardian angel hypothesis seems full of difficulties.

 

[Nixbits]

Linusthe2nd:

You see these laws are nothing but mathematical relationships which exist between various substances and their motions and interactions. They are manifestations of the natures which exist in each substance. It is the nature of each thing which causes it to act or behave in certain ways, directing the motions and changes of each thing toward a specific end. And from these motions and changes science discovers certain relationships between the different substances. And it is these relationships which science calls laws.

What you have described here is that matter behaves the way it does because of what it is. With the possible exception of the initial creation of all matter, and any interventions to cause behaviour that deviates from these physical laws, there is no need for God to do anything to keep the universe going. This seems to generally accord with what science has discovered. So, our observations of the universe neither confirm nor deny the existence of God, but the conclusion is that there is no need for God in our model. Would you agree?

 

[inocente]

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 he, along with Aristotle, thought the heavens moved and the earth stood still. Wrong again, it’s the earth that turns. He makes gaping errors everywhere we look. Nothing stacks up.

*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.*

It isn’t valid, we can’t just ignore all the many errors he makes. An argument so full of holes isn’t going to convince anyone that God exists. More likely the exact opposite. It convinces me that Thomists will believe anything though.

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.

This says to me that Thomas saw stuff move and couldn’t make up his mind how, could be the things doing it, could be angels, could be God, who knows, so he covered all the bases by mumbling a lot.

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?

It’s not extreme. If angels move big things, they necessarily also have to move the small things too, right down to every photon. So there are photons which left stars billions of years ago and still have to be pushed along every microsecond on precise geodesics by angels? All over the universe, gazillions of angels making everything look exactly as it stuff moves itself, in a huge deception master-minded by God? Why would God go through such convolutions? Where is all this in scripture?

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.

I’d be interested in your explanation of how angels make internal combustion engines and mobile phones work. Or is that different?

*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. *

As above, if you need angels to move the big stuff then they have to move the little stuff too. Why did God make such a ramshackle creation that he needs these legions of angels to keep it on track? It sounds like the plot of a low budget sci-fi movie, Matrix Gone Wrong. I think you must be kidding me.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

So he, along with Aristotle, thought the heavens moved and the earth stood still. Wrong again, it’s the earth that turns. He makes gaping errors everywhere we look. Nothing stacks up.

I gave a perfectly good explanation. No " gaping errors " there. But if you insist on seeing errors where there are none, there is nothing I or anyone can do about that.

It isn’t valid, we can’t just ignore all the many errors he makes. An argument so full of holes isn’t going to convince anyone that God exists. More likely the exact opposite. It convinces me that Thomists will believe anything though.

Perfectly valid. If Thomists believe anything, others believe nothing.

This says to me that Thomas saw stuff move and couldn’t make up his mind how, could be the things doing it, could be angels, could be God, who knows, so he covered all the bases by mumbling a lot.

Like I said, there are those who do not wish to understand the argument.

It’s not extreme. If angels move big things, they necessarily also have to move the small things too, right down to every photon. So there are photons which left stars billions of years ago and still have to be pushed along every microsecond on precise geodesics by angels? All over the universe, gazillions of angels making everything look exactly as it stuff moves itself, in a huge deception master-minded by God? Why would God go through such convolutions? Where is all this in scripture?

When one discusses possibilities, one has to discuss all of them. So, once again, how would you explain the motion/change in the universe? Do you think God plays a part in it at all? And if so, what part does he play? But as far as angels are concerned, are they simply messagers of God?

I’d be interested in your explanation of how angels make internal combustion engines and mobile phones work. Or is that different?

I doubt angels have anything to do with that. I rather think, these things work because the substances involved are operating according to the " intentionality " God placed in their natures. This is what Thomas meant by the legitimate causality of creatures. But if you don’t like that idea, how would you explain it?

As above, if you need angels to move the big stuff then they have to move the little stuff too.

That doesn’t follow at all.

Why did God make such a ramshackle creation that he needs these legions of angels to keep it on track?

Nothing God does is " ramshackle. " We do know God has legions of angels. But he doesn’t " need " them. If he uses them the way I have described, he does so because he saw ( sees ) that it is good to do so.

It sounds like the plot of a low budget sci-fi movie, Matrix Gone Wrong. I think you must be kidding me.

No not kidding. I would like to hear your views or speculations. I thought Ynotzap had some good ideas above.

Linus2nd

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Is it at all reasonable to talk about “movement” with regards to existence? Our intuition about movement is built on things which move in a continuum. If we imagine someone walking from their home to the local library, they occupy lots of places in between their house and the library in succession. It is while they are in those successive intermediate states that we say that they are moving. However, existence is not a continuum, it is binary. You can’t half-exist; you either do or you don’t. There are no intermediate states to occupy in succession.

Now, perhaps you mean move in a different sense. Perhaps you are referring to movement as a “reason why.” Then I must ask the question “why would we use the word movement when we mean ‘reason why’?” I suspect it is partly for historical reasons and partly to make people bring intuition about “movement” into a discussion about “reasons why” where it may not apply.

 

[inocente]

I gave a perfectly good explanation. No " gaping errors " there. But if you insist on seeing errors where there are none, there is nothing I or anyone can do about that.

Perfectly valid. If Thomists believe anything, others believe nothing.

Like I said, there are those who do not wish to understand the argument.

When one discusses possibilities, one has to discuss all of them. So, once again, how would you explain the motion/change in the universe? Do you think God plays a part in it at all? And if so, what part does he play? But as far as angels are concerned, are they simply messagers of God?

The notion that Earth is at the center of the universe surrounded by celestial spheres moved by angels was thoroughly debunked several centuries ago.

I doubt angels have anything to do with that. I rather think, these things work because the substances involved are operating according to the " intentionality " God placed in their natures. This is what Thomas meant by the legitimate causality of creatures. But if you don’t like that idea, how would you explain it?

The notion that matter has intentionality was thoroughly debunked several centuries ago, along with the supposed enchanted elements of fire, air, water and earth.

*That doesn’t follow at all. *

Don’t color me surprised - nothing follows in the alternate reality of this thread.

*Nothing God does is " ramshackle. " We do know God has legions of angels. But he doesn’t " need " them. If he uses them the way I have described, he does so because he saw ( sees ) that it is good to do so. *

Isaiah 55 may have something to say about that:

“For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways,”
declares the Lord.

No not kidding. I would like to hear your views or speculations. I thought Ynotzap had some good ideas above.

When something such as Pioneer’s deviation from predicted acceleration is observed, there are two mindsets. One is to start with what is not known and speculate. That’s easy, and the internet is full of such speculations, from God supposedly formed out of dark energy and consciousness to the oil industry supposedly suppressing magical motors invented by Tesla. Much of Aristotle’s physics is such speculation, yet was held to be true for hundreds of years, a salutary lesson never to idolize anyone ever again.

The other mindset is to start with what is known and do some hard work. In the case of Pioneer, apparently several groups independently worked out by 2012 that thermal radiation was indeed the (mundane) explanation, as ynotzap mentioned. See, for instance, planetary.org/blogs/bruce-betts/3459.html

 

[ynotzap]

You sold me.

Linus2nd

As long as you didn’t invest any money, you’re safe

 

[Linusthe2nd]

The notion that Earth is at the center of the universe surrounded by celestial spheres moved by angels was thoroughly debunked several centuries ago.

The notion that matter has intentionality was thoroughly debunked several centuries ago, along with the supposed enchanted elements of fire, air, water and earth.

Don’t color me surprised - nothing follows in the alternate reality of this thread.

Isaiah 55 may have something to say about that:

“For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways,”
declares the Lord.

When something such as Pioneer’s deviation from predicted acceleration is observed, there are two mindsets. One is to start with what is not known and speculate. That’s easy, and the internet is full of such speculations, from God supposedly formed out of dark energy and consciousness to the oil industry supposedly suppressing magical motors invented by Tesla. Much of Aristotle’s physics is such speculation, yet was held to be true for hundreds of years, a salutary lesson never to idolize anyone ever again.

The other mindset is to start with what is known and do some hard work. In the case of Pioneer, apparently several groups independently worked out by 2012 that thermal radiation was indeed the (mundane) explanation, as ynotzap mentioned. See, for instance, planetary.org/blogs/bruce-betts/3459.html

I don’t think this post deserves a serious response. Have a nice day.

Linus2nd

 

[Tom_Baum]

Certainly the laws of the universe are part of God’s plan. But where do these laws reside? You see these laws are nothing but mathematical relationships which exist between various substances and their motions and interactions. They are manifestations of the natures which exist in each substance. It is the nature of each thing which causes it to act or behave in certain ways, directing the motiions and changes of each thing toward a specific end. And from these motions and changes science discovers certain relationshiops between the different substances. And it is these relationships which science calls laws.

.
These “laws”, in my opinion, are just explanations of how things work and it is my opinion that things work the way they do because God created things to work the way they do.

Also, God created us, at least some of us, to be able to figure out these “laws”.

Of course I disagree and so did Aristotle and Aquinas and thousands of great thinkers. Still, not everyone can understand the proofs. But everyone who believes in God has his own reasons and some times it is hard to explain what they are. But as long as they satisfy one’s self, that is all that matters. Each person is different and each one thinks differently. Nothing wrong with that.

Linus2nd

I think that it is fine that some think that they can “prove” that God Is, I just disagree with this, for one thing, do you know if the ones that believe they can prove that God Is, do they agree on just what they mean by “God”?

In other words, since many have many different definitions or ideas about God, does this hold true with those that can “prove”, at least to themselves, that God Is?

Question: Have any of those that have proven that God Is, proven that God Is a Being of Love?

Follow-up question: If any have, has it been some or all?

God is merely a word, it can mean lots of things, do you know if all of the “proofs” are pointing to the same “meaning” of God?

 

[TimothyH]

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

God moves anything by an act of His will.

And even if a creature is not moving, it is being sustained in existnece directly by God.

Everything moves at the molecular level unless it is at absolute zero.

-Tim-

 

[Tom_Baum]

What you have described here is that matter behaves the way it does because of what it is. With the possible exception of the initial creation of all matter, and any interventions to cause behaviour that deviates from these physical laws, there is no need for God to do anything to keep the universe going. This seems to generally accord with what science has discovered. So, our observations of the universe neither confirm nor deny the existence of God, but the conclusion is that there is no need for God in our model. Would you agree?

You wrote, “With the possible exception of the initial creation of all matter”

Then you wrote, “So, our observations of the universe neither confirm nor deny the existence of God, but the conclusion is that there is no need for God in our model. Would you agree?”

Without the “With the possible exception of the initial creation of all matter”, there is no creation whatsoever, or whatever you wish to call what physically is, so the “observations of the universe” would never have been observed since there would be nothing to observe and no one to observe it.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

.
These “laws”, in my opinion, are just explanations of how things work and it is my opinion that things work the way they do because God created things to work the way they do.

But laws are nothing but the mathematical expression of the relationships between things. And these relationships come from the movement and change of things in relationship to themselves. And this movement comes from within the things themselves, from their natures. So laws are nothing but the external expression of the nature of things.

Also, God created us, at least some of us, to be able to figure out these “laws”.

And anyone intelligent enough to do that should be able to see that these laws come from the nature of things themselves.

I think that it is fine that some think that they can “prove” that God Is, I just disagree with this, for one thing, do you know if the ones that believe they can prove that God Is, do they agree on just what they mean by “God”?

The Catholic philosophers and theologians certainly do, and many other Christian philosophers would agree. And I suppose many Jewish philosophers would also.

In other words, since many have many different definitions or ideas about God, does this hold true with those that can “prove”, at least to themselves, that God Is?

I don’t think anyone knows that. Does it matter? The existence of God does not depend on a consenses.

Question: Have any of those that have proven that God Is, proven that God Is a Being of Love?

Augustine and Aquinas have. And many others, but I wouldn’t know how many.
See: dhspriory.org/thomas/english/ContraGentiles1.htm#91

[1] In the same way, there must be love in God according to the act of His will.

[2] For this belongs properly to the nature of love, that the lover will the good of the one he loves. Now, God wills His own good and that of others, as appears from what has been said. This means, therefore, that God loves Himself and other things.

[3] Again, for true love it is required that we will someone’s good as his good. For if we will someone’s good only in so far as it leads to the good of another, we love this someone by accident, just as he who wishes to store wine in order to drink it or loves a man so that this man may be useful or enjoyable to him, loves the wine or the man by accident, but essentially he loves himself. But God wills the good of each thing according as it is the good of each thing; for He wills each thing to be according as it is in itself good (although He likewise orders one thing to another’s use). God, then, truly loves Himself and other things. ( Aquinas )

Follow-up question: If any have, has it been some or all?

God is merely a word, it can mean lots of things, do you know if all of the “proofs” are pointing to the same “meaning” of God?

Certainly the Catholic philosophers and some non-Catholic Christians and Jews would too. Have no idea how many.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

God moves anything by an act of His will.

But he uses creatures to carry out his will. That is what I meant by saying that he moves them through the natures he has given them.

When molecules are the constituents of primary substances, man, animals, vegetation, minerals, they are governed by the nature of that primary substance. They are not free actors which act as though they did not have their activity directed toward the preservation and good of the primary substance. Certainly the molecular structure of a primary substance places boundary thresholds which limit the good and action of the primary substance. But this is not the same as saying molecules move everything. It is simply to say that material substances cannot move without them.

Linus2nd

Linus2nd

[/QUOTE]