Multiple causes

[semaphore]

Hello, I don’t really believe in God, depending on how you define the word, but I’m reading Saint Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologica anyway, because I like rigorously thought out systems of ideas. I’ve only finished the arguments for God’s existence and made it to the questions regarding His nature so far, and I was wondering if there’s a standard Catholic answer to the problem of having more than one first cause.

I believe Aristotle thought there were dozens of them. Why does the initial state prior to the birth of the universe have to be such that there is only one entity? And if the answer is that it would be simpler for there to be one entity than many, then arguments like that can also be turned against the Trinity, right? Not just the Trinity, but pretty much anything you might say about God that makes Him more complex than He needs to be?

Are these questions answered later on, or in other books? Also, Aristotle thought there were four types of causes, so why does the same entity have to be responsible for all of them with respect to the origin of the universe? Can’t there be one first material cause, one first efficient cause, etc? Thanks!

 

[polytropos]

I’ve only finished the arguments for God’s existence and made it to the questions regarding His nature so far, and I was wondering if there’s a standard Catholic answer to the problem of having more than one first cause.

There is. For two things to be distinct they must differ in some property. Suppose there are two first causes. Then one lacks something that the other has. But this implies that one has some potentiality, which implies that it is not pure act, and so could not be a first cause, which is a contradiction. So there is one first cause.

Why does the initial state prior to the birth of the universe have to be such that there is only one entity?

An important point is that Aquinas’s Five Ways (with the exception, I suppose, of the Third, which needs a bit of fixing if one is to use it anyway) do not make claims about the beginning of the universe. They claim that a first cause is necessary here and now.

Are these questions answered later on, or in other books? Also, Aristotle thought there were four types of causes, so why does the same entity have to be responsible for all of them with respect to the origin of the universe? Can’t there be one first material cause, one first efficient cause, etc?

There are a number of distinctions in Aquinas’s philosophy. He accepts Aristotle’s four causes. He also accepts act/potency and existence/essence distinctions. The arguments modeled off of each of the four causes are meant to show that some “purely actual” being (which lacks any potencies and whose essence is existence) exists. If that can be shown, then (by the above argument) the identity of each of the beings responsible for the causes would be established. Aquinas gives some arguments to this effect here.

 

[aragonjohn1]

Hello, I don’t really believe in God, depending on how you define the word, but I’m reading Saint Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologica anyway, because I like rigorously thought out systems of ideas. I’ve only finished the arguments for God’s existence and made it to the questions regarding His nature so far, and I was wondering if there’s a standard Catholic answer to the problem of having more than one first cause.

I believe Aristotle thought there were dozens of them. Why does the initial state prior to the birth of the universe have to be such that there is only one entity? And if the answer is that it would be simpler for there to be one entity than many, then arguments like that can also be turned against the Trinity, right? Not just the Trinity, but pretty much anything you might say about God that makes Him more complex than He needs to be?

Are these questions answered later on, or in other books? Also, Aristotle thought there were four types of causes, so why does the same entity have to be responsible for all of them with respect to the origin of the universe? Can’t there be one first material cause, one first efficient cause, etc? Thanks!

the more one says about the God of love that only enhances His mystery and makes more simple. not complex

[as for there only being one first cause according to belief, non-sciences, and science. so multiple causes is not the answer; God Is.

](http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c1.htm)

God bless

 

[hicetnunc]

Hello, I don’t really believe in God, depending on how you define the word, but I’m reading Saint Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologica anyway, because I like rigorously thought out systems of ideas. I’ve only finished the arguments for God’s existence and made it to the questions regarding His nature so far, and I was wondering if there’s a standard Catholic answer to the problem of having more than one first cause.

I believe Aristotle thought there were dozens of them. Why does the initial state prior to the birth of the universe have to be such that there is only one entity? And if the answer is that it would be simpler for there to be one entity than many, then arguments like that can also be turned against the Trinity, right? Not just the Trinity, but pretty much anything you might say about God that makes Him more complex than He needs to be?

Are these questions answered later on, or in other books? Also, Aristotle thought there were four types of causes, so why does the same entity have to be responsible for all of them with respect to the origin of the universe? Can’t there be one first material cause, one first efficient cause, etc? Thanks!

Hi semaphore;

Thanks for the post.

St Thomas Aquinas rejects the notion of multiple causes; he addresses the problem of multiple first causes in his other Summa, the Summa Contra Gentiles (SCG Book 1, chapter 42.8)

In a nutshell, St Thomas explains why there cannot be multiple first causes thus: if there were two first distinct first causes (let’s call the X and Y), we would have to ask what distinguishes them as causes? First of all, in order to be a first cause, both X and Y would have to be necessary, for if either were contingent they would not then be a necessary first cause. If both X and Y are necessary, they must have some property which distinguishes them from one another in order to differentiate them. Let’s call this differentiating property Z. Now both X and Y cannot possess Z, since then they would in fact be identical and the law of identity would mean that there is only one First Cause. So let’s say X has Z, while Y does not. The next question is then, is Z a necessary property or a contingent property? If it is a necessary property, then Y cannot be a necessary being, since it lacks a property necessary to the definition of a necessary cause and so is on that account not the first cause. But if Z is a contingent or accidental property, then neither is X a necessary being, since we would have to find a prior cause, other than X, to explain Z, since X would not possess Z in virtue of its own necessity.

St Thomas also explains that multiple first causes is in fact a self-contradictory notion, since one would have to postulate a higher cause which could unify diverse causes for the purpose of producing a unified end.

 

[ccmnxc]

Hi semaphore.
I can’t really add anything upon what has already been said. However, if you are interested in Aquinas and his philosophy, I would highly recommend Edward Feser’s book Aquinas: A Beginner’s Guide. Unfortunately, Aquinas is often badly misunderstood do to our modern interpretation of him, and it is difficult to understand his underlying metaphysics when read from a purely modern point of view. Feser does a great job of going through Aquinas’s metaphysics, his Five Ways, his views on ethics, and the philosophy of mind. If you want a good introductory text on Aquinas, this should really open your eyes to his ideas. It did for me.
amazon.com/Aquinas-Beginners-Guide-Edward-Feser/dp/1851686908/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1391887922&sr=8-1&keywords=aquinas+a+beginner%27s+guide
And averaging about 5 stars after 32 reviews is a pretty good track record, I think.

 

[tonyrey]

Hello, I don’t really believe in God, depending on how you define the word, but I’m reading Saint Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologica anyway, because I like rigorously thought out systems of ideas.

A warm welcome to the forum. It is appropriate that your first post begins at the beginning! And you can’t do better for rigour than St Thomas.

I’ve only finished the arguments for God’s existence and made it to the questions regarding His nature so far, and I was wondering if there’s a standard Catholic answer to the problem of having more than one first cause.I believe Aristotle thought there were dozens of them. Why does the initial state prior to the birth of the universe have to be such that there is only one entity?

Occam’s Razor disposes of needless complications regarding a plurality of causes.

And if the answer is that it would be simpler for there to be one entity than many, then arguments like that can also be turned against the Trinity, right? Not just the Trinity, but pretty much anything you might say about God that makes Him more complex than He needs to be?

Where persons are concerned physical criteria are irrelevant as we discover in a court of law. However complex we think we are there is no question about our identity even if it is many years since the alleged crime occurred, regardless of whether we are the victim or the accused.

Are these questions answered later on, or in other books? Also, Aristotle thought there were four types of causes, so why does the same entity have to be responsible for all of them with respect to the origin of the universe? Can’t there be one first material cause, one first efficient cause, etc? Thanks!

The principle of parsimony also applies to causality. Creation ex nihilo is undoubtedly the simplest as well as the most economical explanation.

 

[glendab]

Hello Semaphore.

Hello, I don’t really believe in God, depending on how you define the word, but I’m reading Saint Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologica anyway, because I like rigorously thought out systems of ideas. I’ve only finished the arguments for God’s existence and made it to the questions regarding His nature so far, and I was wondering if there’s a standard Catholic answer to the problem of having more than one first cause.

I believe Aristotle thought there were dozens of them. Why does the initial state prior to the birth of the universe have to be such that there is only one entity? And if the answer is that it would be simpler for there to be one entity than many, then arguments like that can also be turned against the Trinity, right? Not just the Trinity, but pretty much anything you might say about God that makes Him more complex than He needs to be?

Are these questions answered later on, or in other books? Also, Aristotle thought there were four types of causes, so why does the same entity have to be responsible for all of them with respect to the origin of the universe? Can’t there be one first material cause, one first efficient cause, etc? Thanks!

God is the First cause He is also the Last. He states this for those who are philosophically minded clearly in Scripture by saying He is the first and the last, the alpha and the omega, the beginning and the end. He wants you to get it. Read Genesis 1 and 2. God made the Universe and everything it contains. And there is more to it that just what appears to the visible eye in space. When you look up to the sky and are amazed at its beauty and the awesome numbers that some scientists have given us think about this: it is transitory and not eternal. Heaven is though as is God and all of us who intend to get there or have already gotten there. No need for a space ship just Jesus and His Church.

As for Aristotle, it has been a while since I read him in college and I enjoyed him o more than Plato although Plato had clearer thoughts I think. I’m a little rusty in that area but I thought then that his suppositions of various “causes” were because he lived in a polytheistic society and it had effected his thinking that way. His religion did appear in his pages to me when I was studying that stuff. It was through college and the things I was given to read that I converted. So keep reading and stay curious. It is good to expand your mind.

The answer for your first question is contained in this: God created it all, therefore logic says He was before all else that is. That is also contained in Scripture. There is quite a bit of the metaphysical in our Bible. You should seek it out.
You misunderstand the Trinity. It is very simple - One God three Divine Persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. You’ll need a little faith to get through you dissections of that mystery though I’m afraid. They aren’t three separate persons.
I think some of your dilemma is that you kinda think of God as an abstraction, a sort of entity that you need to piece together from a few accepted things that seem correct to your way of thinking. That is okay for now, but you might want to keep an open mind. To us Catholics though we see the limits of this. You create your own god who is a product of your thinking rather than allowing God to reveal Himself to you through the Church, the Holy Spirit and other sources.

Pray to St. Thomas while you’re reading his stuff and perhaps you’ll begin to see more on those pages then ink. They might come alive for you. That would be awesome if you ask me.

Glenda

 

[glendab]

For those who wish to understand the stuff in the thread already here’s a help: " In Physics II 3 and Metaphysics V 2, Aristotle offers his general account of the four causes. This account is general in the sense that it applies to everything that requires an explanation, including artistic production and human action. Here Aristotle recognizes four types of things that can be given in answer to a why-question:
•The material cause: “that out of which”, e.g., the bronze of a statue.
•The formal cause: “the form”, “the account of what-it-is-to-be”, e.g., the shape of a statue.
•The efficient cause: “the primary source of the change or rest”, e.g., the artisan, the art of bronze-casting the statue, the man who gives advice, the father of the child.
•The final cause: “the end, that for the sake of which a thing is done”, e.g., health is the end of walking, losing weight, purging, drugs, and surgical tools."

LINK : plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-causality/#FouCau

Enjoy! It’s fun stuff.

Glenda

P.S. Oh I should mention I got admonished repeatedly in college about using the word STUFF for describing all things philosophical by my professors. It didn’t work so hot. I still use the word too much. Oh well. I’m old and it doesn’t matter anymore cause I don’t’ need the grades.