On refutation of the Unmoved Mover

[Charlemagne_II]

Linus

We have to hold with Thomas that creatures have their own act of existence and it is not God’s. But He has given it to them and He sustains it as part of His Divine Concurrence or Government.

Yes, I think I get it. If creatures do not have their separate existence, then God is creating himself over and over each time he creates. That would be a paradox I choose not to ponder.

 

[Linux]

Linus

We have to hold with Thomas that creatures have their own act of existence and it is not God’s. But He has given it to them and He sustains it as part of His Divine Concurrence or Government.

Yes, I think I get it. If creatures do not have their separate existence, then God is creating himself over and over each time he creates. That would be a paradox I choose not to ponder.

God does not create the act of existence; the act of existence is not a genus. There is no possible distinction in the act of existence; it is meaningless to speak of different kinds of esse; their cannot be species of esse. If God is ontologically the fullness of existence, it makes no rational sense to speak of an act of existence that is not identical to God. For God to create the act of existence out of nothing would mean that there is an act of existence that God does not have which would also mean that God is in potentiality to it and therefore is not the fullness of existence, and that is a contradiction. The only way around that problem is to acknowledge that creation participates “in” the act of existence, and is held in existence by existence, but is not identical to what the act of existence is.

Aquinas’s principle which is called the esse and essence distinction allows this to be possible. Existence and essences remain distinct even after being conjoined. This is how he got round the Parminides parodox which basically states that anything identical to existence cannot begin or cease, for it is it’s nature to be real. Parminides therefore denied the existence of change and concluded the universe to be eternal and quite rightly if the nature of the universe is that by which it is actual. The esse/essence distinction is not a mere abstract distinction, it is a real distinction that every true Thomist admits to, even if they do not take it to it’s full conclusion.

While there can only be one act of existence, there are different kinds of natures that are conjoined to Existence by God and can change into different kinds of natures since they are not identical with the act of existence. If they were identical with their act of existence they would always exist and would never change like God. If they are not identical with their act of existence, if the act of existence is not intrinsic to their nature, then the act by which they are real is a nature of its own and is not to be identified with creation.

We can know that existence is not intrinsic to the nature of creation since creation begins to exist, and thus the act of existence is something different to created natures.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

God does not create the act of existence; the act of existence is not a genus. There is no possible distinction in the act of existence; it is meaningless to speak of different kinds of esse; their cannot be species of esse. If God is ontologically the fullness of existence, it makes no rational sense to speak of an act of existence that is not identical to God. For God to create the act of existence out of nothing would mean that there is an act of existence that God does not have which would also mean that God is in potentiality to it and therefore is not the fullness of existence, and that is a contradiction. …

By " act of existence " in reference we mean simply Pure Existence, the Being of God, or just God. We agree that neither God nor the Being of God, nor Pure Existence, nor the Act of Existing are in a genus.

How ever Being can be predicated of both God and creatures analogically, so your argument fails. Thomas says, " 45. Also, notice that, when we speak of intrinsic principles, namely, matter and form, according to the agreement and difference of things that are from principles and according to the agreement and difference of principles, we find that some are numerically the same, as are Socrates and this man in the Socrates now pointed out; others are numerically diverse and specifically the same, as Socrates and Plato who, although they differ numerically, have the same human species; others differ specifically but are generically the same, as man and *** have the same genus animal; others are generically diverse and are only analogically the same, as substance and quantity which have no common genus and are only analogically the same, because they are the same only in so far as they are beings. “Being”, however, is not a genus because it is not predicated univocally, but only analogically.

1. In order to understand this last we must notice something is predicated of many things in three ways: univocally, equivocally and analogically. Something is predicated univocally according to the same name and the same nature, i.e., definition, as animal is predicated of man and of ***, because each is called animal and each is a sensible, animated substance, which is the definition of animal. That is predicated equivocally which is predicated of some things according to the same name but according to a different nature, as dog is said of the thing that barks and of the star in the heavens, which two agree in the name but not in the definition or in signification, because that which is signified by the name is the definition, as is said in the fourth book of the Metaphysics. That is said to be predicated analogically which is predicated of many whose natures are diverse but which are attributed to one same thing, as health is said of the animal body, or urine and of food, but it does not signify entirely the same thing in all three; it is said of urine as a sign of health, of body as of a subject and of food as of a cause. But all these natures are attributed to one end, namely to health.
2. Sometimes those things which agree according to analogy, i.e., in proportion, comparison or agreement, are attributed to one end, as was plain in the preceding example of health. Sometimes they are attributed to one agent, as medical is said of one who acts with art, of one who acts without art, as a midwife, and even of the instruments; but it is said of all by attribution to one agent which is medicine. Sometimes it is said by attribution to one subject, as “being” is said of substance, quantity, quality and the other predicaments, because it is not entirely for the same reason that substance is being, and quantity and the others. Rather, all are called being in so far as they are attributed to substance which is the subject of the others.
3. Therefore being is said primarily of substance and secondarily of the others. Therefore “being” is not a genus of substance and quantity because no genus is predicated of its species according to prior and posterior; rather, “being” is predicated analogically. This is what we mean when we say that substance and quantity differ generically but are the same analogically.
4. Therefore the form and matter of those things which are numerically the same are themselves likewise numerically the same, as are the form and matter of Tullius and Cicero. The matter and form of those things which are specifically the same and numerically diverse are not the same numerically, but specifically, as the matter and form of Socrates and Plato. Likewise, the matter and form of those things which are generically the same, as the soul and body of an *** and a horse differ specifically but are the same generically; likewise, the principles of those things which agree only analogically or proportionally are the same only analogically or proportionally, because matter, form and privation or potency and act are the principles of substance and of the other genera. However, the matter, form and privation of substance and of quantity differ generically, but they agree according to proportion only, in so far as the matter of substance is to substance, in the nature of matter, as the matter of quantity is to quantity; still, just as substance is the cause of the others, so the principles of substance are the principles of all the others. " ( De Principiis De Naturae,
   dhspriory.org/thomas/english/DePrincNaturae.htm )

But really, your arguments are defeated on purely locical grounds which we have been over many times. I creatures do not have their own existence but partake of God’s own existence, then one of two things happen. Creatures ( what you call essences ) will be pure forms which do not have an act of existence ( Plato ) or they will be God.

Jesus Christ actually participated in God’s Act of Existence and He was God, the Second Person of the Trinity.

Linus2nd

 

[inocente]

I’ve just shown you there are many examples in Scripture that God is most intimately active in his creation. But you draw the line at the micro/nano level. There is no Scripural reason for doing so. And certainly when it comes to things like dividing the Red Sea and creating a path for the Israelites, placing a firey cloud between the Egyptians and the Israelites, pushing back the Jordan, the plagues on Egypt, sending the Manna daily to feed the Israelites the desert, Christ’s stilling of the storm, His walking on water, raising the dead to life - all these examples and more show that God can indeed " micromanage. "

Where I have relied on Thomas is in speaking of the causality of secondary causes. I know your repugnance of Metaphysics, but at least Thomas has an explanation. Science offers you no reason to say that God is not involved in His creation at the micro/nano level. That is just your personal repugnance to the idea getting in the way.

You should at least be willing to admit that I have shown that there are good reasons to say that God is active intimately without destroying the natural causality of the most minute parts of His creation.

This is a peculiar image you offer us. Who said anything about God running around as the slave of the universe. Just by the words he spoke God caused the universe and everything in it to be created. Not only created but sustained. Do you believe that if God for a moment withheld his sustaining hand, the universe would not immediately return to nothing? The universe and all the causality within it is only possible because God by his omnipotence allows it. How does that make a slave of God?

None of Linus’ examples are anywhere close to the micromanagement required by the argument. Every photon streaming from one light bulb has its wave changing continuously around 500,000,000,000,000 times per second, and that’s just one of around 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 photons streaming from just that one bulb in one second. Imagine then the number of photons leaving one star every second. Then remember there are trillions of stars. And that’s just photons. Requiring the unmoved mover to be a slave to all of that is ridiculous.

It’s as far away from any traditional/scriptural understanding of God as one can possibly get. Thomas could never have known and can be forgiven but I think you guys must have his argument wrong anyway on this.

You Cannot Be Serious!!!

 

[Linusthe2nd]

None of Linus’ examples are anywhere close to the micromanagement required by the argument. Every photon streaming from one light bulb has its wave changing continuously around 500,000,000,000,000 times per second, and that’s just one of around 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 photons streaming from just that one bulb in one second. Imagine then the number of photons leaving one star every second. Then remember there are trillions of stars. And that’s just photons. Requiring the unmoved mover to be a slave to all of that is ridiculous.

It’s as far away from any traditional/scriptural understanding of God as one can possibly get. Thomas could never have known and can be forgiven but I think you guys must have his argument wrong anyway on this.

You Cannot Be Serious!!!

Inocente, it seems to me that a Christian, a Jew, and a Muslim must accept the following propositions. One, that God created everything in the universe from absolute non-being. Two, that no created being can create anything, though they can and do produce things from previously existing matter. Three, that God somehow directs and causes every change and movement in the universe, even down to the most miniscule bit of matter science has or can discover.

These propositions can be accepted on Scriptual proofs ( some of which I have provided ), broadly interpreted. For surely if God created the universe from nothing and all that is in it, it could not be a burden to Him to direct the most miniscule aspects of His creation.

Or one can rely on Thomistic arguments, which argue positively to all the propositions above. Further, he argues that God’s Concursive causality and guidance does not interfer with the natural causality of the secondary causes of creatures which He has built into their natures.

Or, for Catholics, they can accept the teaching of the Church on these matters.

P.S, The following link will introduce you to Thomas’ own definition of some of the philosophical terms he uses. " Concerning Principles of Nature " dhspriory.org/thomas/english/DePrincNaturae.htm

Linus2nd

 

[inocente]

Inocente, it seems to me that a Christian, a Jew, and a Muslim must accept the following propositions. One, that God created everything in the universe from absolute non-being. Two, that no created being can create anything, though they can and do produce things from previously existing matter. Three, that God somehow directs and causes every change and movement in the universe, even down to the most miniscule bit of matter science has or can discover.

I think your attempt to save the first way has forced your prop 3 to be wrong for at least three reasons: (a) God created the laws of nature to do all of that so He doesn’t have to; (b) If your prop were true, God wouldn’t need to sustain anything while it wasn’t changing; (c) Scripture and ordinary beliefs about God require that He is Almighty, not a constant slave to everything in the universe.

It might be better written along the lines that God constantly sustains all being.

Prop 2 isn’t quite right due to matter/energy equivalence, you could replace it with the principle of conservation of energy.

 

[Linux]

By " act of existence " in reference we mean simply Pure Existence, the Being of God, or just God. We agree that neither God nor the Being of God, nor Pure Existence, nor the Act of Existing are in a genus.Linus2nd

Aquinas recognizes that God is not a genus because he concludes that God is identical to the act of existence. The act of existence is not a genus regardless of the question of God.

How ever Being can be predicated of both God and creatures analogically, so your argument fails.

No it does not. When we say that created things exist, one cannot rationally say that they are species or kinds of the act of existence. Neither can one say that they are identical to the act of existence since their nature is something distinct from the act of existence which is evident in the fact that their natures begin to exist. Therefore the act of existence as it relates to creature is clearly a thing in and of itself and is identical to itself regardless of whats participating in it. Thats why we can only use the word existence analogically in reference to creatures. And if we use the term being analogically in reference to both God and creatures it does not and cannot rationally mean that God is not identical to the act of existence and is thus attributed to him analogical, but rather it is to understand that God and creatures are analogical in reference to each other in how they exist; and calling them both beings is simply a way of simplifying a complicated matter since they are both “being” in some sense, just not in the same respect.

Regardless; it makes no sense to say that the act of existence begins to be what it is intrinsically, which is precisely why it is irrational to divide it ontologically. The act of existence does not begin to be a car or a house or a child or a hippo; such uses of the idea of existence as you presented it are clearly irrational for reasons i have already presented and you have ignored with your infallible senses.

Thomas says,

Linus2nd

I don’t really care what Thomas said unless it can be demonstrated as reasonable. If he is wrong then he is wrong, and there is nothing you or anyone else can do to make him right.

I prefer to think that your so called infallible interpretation is wrong because i refuse to believe he had such an obviously erroneous concept of existence in regards to created things and their sustenance. Nowhere does Aquinas mention this elusive esoteric “esse” that is according to you and prodigalson not actual in itself but is that which gives actuality and yet requires God to give esse actuality. That is pure nonsense.

 

[Linux]

But really, your arguments are defeated on purely locical grounds which we have been over many times. I creatures do not have their own existence but partake of God’s own existence, then one of two things happen. Creatures ( what you call essences ) will be pure forms which do not have an act of existence ( Plato ) or they will be God.
Linus2nd

Allegedly.

Jesus Christ actually participated in God’s Act of Existence and He was God, the Second Person of the Trinity. .

It seems to me there is a dam sight more involved than simply a participation in the act of God’s existence as i have presented it. The logos is God, however the biological organism through which the logos was particularly expressed is not identical to God.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Allegedly.

It seems to me there is a dam sight more involved than simply a participation in the act of God’s existence as i have presented it. The logos is God, however the biological organism through which the logos was particularly expressed is not identical to God.

Catholic Doctrine is that the human nature of Jesus and the Divine nature are one Person, the Person of the Second Person of the Trinity. Jesus was true God and true man. Catholics do not separate the two natures, as you did, we unite them in one Person. That is something we accept on Faith, not on reason.

Linus2nd

 

[Linux]

Catholic Doctrine is that the human nature of Jesus and the Divine nature are one Person, the Person of the Second Person of the Trinity. Jesus was true God and true man. Catholics do not separate the two natures, as you did, we unite them in one Person. That is something we accept on Faith, not on reason.

Linus2nd

The biological nature of Jesus is not identical to God.

 

[Linux]

Catholic Doctrine is that the human nature of Jesus and the Divine nature are one Person, the Person of the Second Person of the Trinity. Jesus was true God and true man. Catholics do not separate the two natures, as you did, we unite them in one Person. That is something we accept on Faith, not on reason.

Linus2nd

The biological nature of Jesus is not identical to God. I don’t know what that means for your faith, but thats a metaphysical fact. Perhaps you should throw out Thomism all-together, and do process theology instead.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

The biological nature of Jesus is not identical to God. I don’t know what that means for your faith, but thats a metaphysical fact. Perhaps you should throw out Thomism all-together, and do process theology instead.

If you are interested you can read what Thomas Aquinas says about the Incarnation here, newadvent.org/summa/4.htm

What the Catholic Church teaches can be found here, vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P1D.HTM

I don’t need process Theology thanks. And I don’t believe in private interpretation, I believe in Divine Revelation. Unlike some whom you know who refuse to let anyone know where they stand. I guess they are ashamed of what they are.

Linus2bd

 

[Linux]

If you are interested you can read what Thomas Aquinas says about the Incarnation here, newadvent.org/summa/4.htm

What the Catholic Church teaches can be found here, vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P1D.HTM

I don’t need process Theology thanks. And I don’t believe in private interpretation, I believe in Divine Revelation. Unlike some whom you know who refuse to let anyone know where they stand. I guess they are ashamed of what they are.

Linus2bd

1. Physical beings are not God ontologically speaking.
2. Jesus had a physical being.

Conclusion: His physical being is not God ontologically speaking.

Of course i believe that Jesus Christ is God. But i don’t believe he is God in any manner that is contrary to reason.

Unless my beliefs are relevant to this discussion, they are none of your business. It holds no relevance to whether or not my argument is correct.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

1. Physical beings are not God ontologically speaking.
2. Jesus had a physical being.

Conclusion: His physical being is not God ontologically speaking.

Of course i believe that Jesus Christ is God. But i don’t believe he is God in any manner that is contrary to reason.

Unless my beliefs are relevant to this discussion, they are none of your business. It holds no relevance to whether or not my argument is correct.

You are engaging in rash judgment. I didn’t mention any names.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Inocente.

Re: On refutation of the Unmoved Mover

---

Quote:
Originally Posted by Linusthe2nd
Inocente, it seems to me that a Christian, a Jew, and a Muslim must accept the following propositions. One, that God created everything in the universe from absolute non-being. Two, that no created being can create anything, though they can and do produce things from previously existing matter. Three, that God somehow directs and causes every change and movement in the universe, even down to the most miniscule bit of matter science has or can discover.

I think your attempt to save the first way has forced your prop 3 to be wrong for at least three reasons: (a) God created the laws of nature to do all of that so He doesn’t have to; (b) If your prop were true, God wouldn’t need to sustain anything while it wasn’t changing; (c) Scripture and ordinary beliefs about God require that He is Almighty, not a constant slave to everything in the universe.

Of course God created the laws of nature. Thomas makes this abundantly clear. Each being has a Nature ( Thomas would call it a Substantial Form) which contains the " forces " and " encoded " directions for the being’s activity. Your supposition that this means that God did this so He wouldn’t have to " get involved " is not Scriptual. It illustrates that it is perfectly legitimate to draw inferences from certain facts observed in nature or from Scripture itself. And this is philosophical thinking. Though I disagree with your inference, I am glad to see you engaged in a little philosophical thinking.

Here is where you are wrong. Because God is the One Subsistent Act of Existence, creatures depend on God for the gift of existence. They can no more sustain their own act of existence than they could create it for themselves. Therefore God must be present to every being sustaining it in existence. And that means he is sustaining its Nature ( Substantial Form ) and its matter in existence - all that makes it what is, and how it operates, and the direction or end.toward which it directs its activities.

Certainly Scripture refers to God as Almighty. How could God’s intimate activity in His Creation be any burden to One Who is Almighty? Scripture shows many examples of God’s intimate activity in the activities of His creatures - and I have given you some examples of this. This does not mean that His creatures have no legitimate activity of their own. It simply means that God is the Ultimate Cause of their activity and their existence, even of the tiniest beings of his creation ( photons, waves, energy, whatever, etc. ).

Does Scripture spell this out in detail? No, He expects us to use our intelligence.

Your concept that the Almighty creates and then stands off and ignores His creation is the heresy of Deism.

It might be better written along the lines that God constantly sustains all being.

And indeed, that is what I have been saying. To sustain being in creation is to sustain all of its forces, and activity, and Nature and matter, because unless these are sustained there is no being which exists. To sustain is not a static activity, it is an absolutely active participation in each being’s activity and existence…

Prop 2 isn’t quite right due to matter/energy equivalence, you could replace it with the principle of conservation of energy.

Whatever you mean here, even if this is static, it still depends on God to sustain its Substantial Form and its existence.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Aquinas recognizes that God is not a genus because he concludes that God is identical to the act of existence. The act of existence is not a genus regardless of the question of God.

Being or existence is not a genus, that is why it is said of everything that exists analogically, as Thomas demonstrates. So your objection does not hold.

No it does not. When we say that created things exist, one cannot rationally say that they are species or kinds of the act of existence.

And I do not say that and neither does Thomas. Creatures are beings which have existence, they are never identified as existence

Neither can one say that they are identical to the act of existence since their nature is something distinct from the act of existence which is evident in the fact that their natures begin to exist.

Indeed, that is what I and Thomas have insisted upon. Neither ever said anything contrary.

Therefore the act of existence as it relates to creature is clearly a thing in and of itself and is identical to itself regardless of whats participating in it.

Yes, their act of existence is distinct from their Natures but is conjoined to their Natures in such a way that it has no reality unless so conjoined. But their act of existence is not identicle with their substance for it suffusses their entire essence - their nature and matter, if any.

Thats why we can only use the word existence analogically in reference to creatures. And if we use the term being analogically in reference to both God and creatures it does not and cannot rationally mean that God is not identical to the act of existence and is thus attributed to him analogical, but rather it is to understand that God and creatures are analogical in reference to each other in how they exist; and calling them both beings is simply a way of simplifying a complicated matter since they are both “being” in some sense, just not in the same respect.

You are confused here. We say being and existence by the analogy of proportionate attribution ( I’m impressed that you knew this ) of both God and creatures. And by this we mean that God is Pure Existence and creatures are beings which have existence. So creatures are not identical to their existence but are beings which have existence.

Regardless; it makes no sense to say that the act of existence begins to be what it is intrinsically, which is precisely why it is irrational to divide it ontologically.

On the contrary, it is most appropriate. It is how we distinguish God from His creatures. And we have not divided creatures ontologically, we, in fact, insist that the act of existence, while distinct from the essence of a creature, is composed with it so as to make a being or substance that exists.

The act of existence does not begin to be a car or a house or a child or a hippo; such uses of the idea of existence as you presented it are clearly irrational for reasons i have already presented and you have ignored with your infallible senses.

And I never said it meant existence was a car or a house or any other creature. I have always said it is what makes a created essence an actual being or substance, it makes its what a this or a that.

… Nowhere does Aquinas mention this elusive esoteric “esse” that is according to you and prodigalson not actual in itself but is that which gives actuality and yet requires God to give esse actuality. That is pure nonsense.

And there you are wrong. First of all he clearly says that God is Pure Existence ( Purus Esse Subsistens ) S.T., Part 1, ques 3, art 1, on God’s simplicity. God, Who is Pure Existence definitely exists.

And in S.T., Part 1, Ques 45, " I Respond…, " Thomas says, " Illi enim proprie convenit esse quod habet esse, et quod es subsistnes in suo esse. " " For that is properly known as a being which has existence and which subsists in its own existence. He is speaking here of created beings. So if it has existence, its existence does not exist alone. And it is clearly the act which makes creatures actual.

And I have already shown you above ( post # 317 above ), " In order to make this point clear… Now the first of all effects is being, which is presupposed to all other effects, and does not presuppose any other effect: wherefore to give being as such must be the effect of the first cause alone by its own power…"
( Disputed Questions on the Power of God, Q III, Art IV, Is the Creative Power or Act Communicable to a Creature? dhspriory.org/thomas/QDdePotentia.htm#1:1

You can of course reject Thomas’ thinking, or mine, on any of this ( which you have ). But I think people who are able to comprehend the arguments will agree with Thomas.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

1. Physical beings are not God ontologically speaking.
2. Jesus had a physical being.

Conclusion: His physical being is not God ontologically speaking.

The Catholic Church teaches otherwise. We do not divide Christ.

[Of course i believe that Jesus Christ is God. But i don’t believe he is God in any manner that is contrary to reason.

Nothing the Catholic Church teaches is contrary to Scripture or the Revealed Word, nor contrary to reason.

Linus2nd
[/quote]

 

[1AugustSon7]

But a logical statement may not be true. It depends on the truth of its premises, and that cannot be established within the logic itself.

So we can establish the truth of a premise illogically? But if we are not bound by logic (or to be logical), how will you go about proving to me that you are not really a toad? How exactly does one go about proving or demonstrating a premise without logic? For if doing so does not require logic, then it can be demonstrated illogically; but then anything would or could be demonstrated.

Absolute Truth may, or may not exist.

Therefore rossum may or may not be an elf princess trapped in the body of a toad.

I suspect that it does not, but even if it does you have no absolute way of expressing any proposed Absolute Truth.

1+1=2. But perhaps by “you” you mean that others save yourself and your fellow clique of enlightend sceptics who alone enjoy the right and privilege to contradict yourselves.

All language is relative and relies on assumptions.

This would be an absolute truth; and you prove by it that you certainly managed to find a way of expressing it.

 

[davidv]

1. Physical beings are not God ontologically speaking.
2. Jesus had a physical being.

Conclusion: His physical being is not God ontologically speaking.

Of course i believe that Jesus Christ is God. But i don’t believe he is God in any manner that is contrary to reason.

Unless my beliefs are relevant to this discussion, they are none of your business. It holds no relevance to whether or not my argument is correct.

#2 is false. Jesus is a divine person (being) with both human and divine natures.

Therefore your conclusion does not follow.

 

[Linux]

#2 is false. Jesus is a divine person (being) with both human and divine natures.

Therefore your conclusion does not follow.

This is a straw-man, i didn’t say Jesus does not have a divine nature.

Jesus also had a human finite nature. Jesus was a biological organism.

Biological organisms are not identical to God. Fact! Its irrelevant that he was also a divine being.

The human biological organism is not by nature God. Fact.