Question about Aquinas's Arguments for the Existence of God

[icamhif]

Well, the unmoved mover is pure act. Matter is potentiality. Accordingly, the unmoved mover is without matter and thus is immaterial.

What does “pure act” mean? Does it simply mean that there is nothing It has the potential to be that It already is? Or is there more to it than that?

Isn’t matter both a potentiality and an actuality? For example, doesn’t water at room temperature have “liquid state” as an actualiy, yet have potentiality to become vapor at 100 degrees Celsius? Or am I misunderstanding what Potentiality and Actuality actually mean?

Yes, rocks have a purpose as everything that God created has a purpose. God did not create anything for no reason. I don’t think we would have mountains without rocks nor soil for plants, trees, and crops to grow in. If I’m not mistaken, geology says that soil comes from rocks. Also, we build things from rocks and stones such as houses and what not.

Good point.

 

[ynotzap]

What does “pure act” mean? Does it simply mean that there is nothing It has the potential to be that It already is? Or is there more to it than that?

Isn’t matter both a potentiality and an actuality? For example, doesn’t water at room temperature have “liquid state” as an actualiy, yet have potentiality to become vapor at 100 degrees Celsius? Or am I misunderstanding what Potentiality and Actuality actually mean?

Good point.

To understand potency and act, and pure act, we need to understand that potency and act is applied to created things, and pure act can only be applied to God, the Creator. eg. Water (a liquid) can be ice (a solid) or steam (a vapor). these are all potential stages of the existence of matter. There is movement (change) from the potential stage to the actual stage.( a liquid is not a solid stage) but still remains matter. When the potential stage is fulfilled, it is said to be “in act”. When speaking of God, who is Pure Being- there is no potential stage, He is all that He can be at once. There is no change, we are constantly changing, moving towards full being, God. IOW, we are "becoming “, not being, which can only be applied t o God, who is Pure being, and Pure Act
The movement from potency to act in created things (the capacity to change to the actual change) is caused by the Prime Mover,or Unmoved Mover. If movement was our nature, we would always be in pure act(which is impossible), meaning that we would be all that we could be at once, which is contrary to our experience. Energy is matter in motion, matter can not move itself( it does not produce it’s own change) but is said “to be moved by another” There are secondary movements meaning eg. kinetic energy, but this movement is passed on from object to object once initiated by the Prime Mover, and the motion is sustained by the Prime Mover while moving There is a scientific statement that says " what is in motion, tends to stay in motion” Of course until it meets resistance.

 

[icamhif]

To understand potency and act, and pure act, we need to understand that potency and act is applied to created things, and pure act can only be applied to God, the Creator. eg. Water (a liquid) can be ice (a solid) or steam (a vapor). these are all potential stages of the existence of matter. There is movement (change) from the potential stage to the actual stage.( a liquid is not a solid stage) but still remains matter. When the potential stage is fulfilled, it is said to be “in act”. When speaking of God, who is Pure Being- there is no potential stage, He is all that He can be at once. There is no change, we are constantly changing, moving towards full being, God. IOW, we are "becoming “, not being, which can only be applied t o God, who is Pure being, and Pure Act
The movement from potency to act in created things (the capacity to change to the actual change) is caused by the Prime Mover,or Unmoved Mover. If movement was our nature, we would always be in pure act(which is impossible), meaning that we would be all that we could be at once, which is contrary to our experience. Energy is matter in motion, matter can not move itself( it does not produce it’s own change) but is said “to be moved by another” There are secondary movements meaning eg. kinetic energy, but this movement is passed on from object to object once initiated by the Prime Mover, and the motion is sustained by the Prime Mover while moving There is a scientific statement that says " what is in motion, tends to stay in motion” Of course until it meets resistance.

Thanks, ynotzap! That was helpful.

Another question: If the logic that God has no potentiality holds, then wouldn’t that make the Incarnation impossible? Or can it be argued that God transcends time, so from God’s eternal perspective, the Incarnation has already Actualized since eternity past, even before it happened in our temporal perspective?

 

[ynotzap]

Thanks, ynotzap! That was helpful.

Another question: If the logic that God has no potentiality holds, then wouldn’t that make the Incarnation impossible? Or can it be argued that God transcends time, so from God’s eternal perspective, the Incarnation has already Actualized since eternity past, even before it happened in our temporal perspective?

Yes, God transcends time, and the Incarnation, the Word (Jesus-the second Person of the Blessed Trinity-God) took on “flesh”, became man, so that Jesus became God-man in time, He became the bridge between God the Father and mankind. God entered time by becoming man, but He was a Divine Person with a human nature, and a divine nature. God is the Creator of Time, and transcends it. In God there is only eternity, infinity, no beginning, no end, no past or future, only the present. The Incarnation was in God’s eternal plan, predestined, not a plan made in time In God we have our being, although we are not part of God, for God has no parts, or is composed. He is Simple God’s plan is made manifest in time to us, who are creatures of time, finite, limited, dependent. The past for us is the potency that has been actualized, and the future is the potency to be actualized, and the present is the potency being actualized Jesus was exactly like us except for sin, but He was always a Divine person with a human nature.

 

[Peter_Plato]

…from God’s eternal perspective, the Incarnation has already Actualized since eternity past, even before it happened in our temporal perspective?

There is no “eternity past.” Eternity is timeless, i.e., not regulated or constrained by time. To say “eternity past” is to propose an incoherency.

 

[thinkandmull]

Well, the unmoved mover is pure act. Matter is potentiality. Accordingly, the unmoved mover is without matter and thus is immaterial.

Yes, rocks have a purpose as everything that God created has a purpose. God did not create anything for no reason. I don’t think we would have mountains without rocks nor soil for plants, trees, and crops to grow in. If I’m not mistaken, geology says that soil comes from rocks. Also, we build things from rocks and stones such as houses and what not.

There is no reason to believe that God is pure act and no potency, as discussed on another thread. If you have the syllogism to refute what I’m say here, please let me know

 

[thinkandmull]

There is no “eternity past.” Eternity is timeless, i.e., not regulated or constrained by time. To say “eternity past” is to propose an incoherency.

You would have to provide for us the syllogism to prove that God has no eternal past, but instead a sole instant eternity

 

[thinkandmull]

I’m not trying to be confrontational. But there are many opinions on God. What makes sense to one person sounds strange to someone else. If we state things not dogmatically when we are dealing with conjecture, I people will reap for fruit.

 

[ynotzap]

There is no reason to believe that God is pure act and no potency, as discussed on another thread. If you have the syllogism to refute what I’m say here, please let me know

It will take more than a syllogism to refute your positions. If we take a real life observation that everything has a cause, we can then trace the effect of each cause back to it’s first cause eg. the chain of procreation, father causing birth of a son, son becomes adult causing birth of another son, and so on. Or a cue ball hitting another ball causing it to hit another ball, and so on. If we trace the effect back to it’s first cause through a series of causes and effect we find that an ultimate cause is needed. It can not be in the series of causes because the first in the series is not it’s own cause. This logically necessitates an uncaused cause. This uncaused cause we call God. To be an uncaused cause, it has to subsist, not depending on anything for it’s existence, if it did, it wouldn’t be the uncaused cause. To subsist it would have to have existence as it’s nature, that means that anything it can be it will be, the fullness of being ( I Am who Am) That means there is no potentiality in God, He is Pure Being and Pure Act.
You can not have an infinite series of causes. It must have a beginning. For a series of causes to be infinite it would have no beginning and no end, meaning the series would have always existed and so would each cause exist eternally. Now if one cause causes and effect, and it in turn causes another effect and so on, this amounts to a logical contradiction. In a series of causes, one cause depends on another cause for its existence, but if the causes in an infinite series existed infinitely, then each cause did not cause another cause to exist. We can not have an infinite series of causes. Although once begun, the series can be maintained infinitely by the Uncaused Cause, God

 

[icamhif]

Forgive me if I make a lot of logical leaps as I ask this question, but here it goes:
Vatican 1 teaches that rational reason alone can prove with certainty the existence of God. If the best philosophical arguments for God are in Thomist philosophy, which is rooted in Aristotlian metaphysics, does that mean that Aristotlean metaphysics (formal and final cause, potentiality and actuality, etc.) is a dogma of the Catholic Church?

 

[Rohzek]

It will take more than a syllogism to refute your positions. If we take a real life observation that everything has a cause, we can then trace the effect of each cause back to it’s first cause eg. the chain of procreation, father causing birth of a son, son becomes adult causing birth of another son, and so on. Or a cue ball hitting another ball causing it to hit another ball, and so on. If we trace the effect back to it’s first cause through a series of causes and effect we find that an ultimate cause is needed. It can not be in the series of causes because the first in the series is not it’s own cause. This logically necessitates an uncaused cause. This uncaused cause we call God. To be an uncaused cause, it has to subsist, not depending on anything for it’s existence, if it did, it wouldn’t be the uncaused cause. To subsist it would have to have existence as it’s nature, that means that anything it can be it will be, the fullness of being ( I Am who Am) That means there is no potentiality in God, He is Pure Being and Pure Act.
You can not have an infinite series of causes. It must have a beginning. For a series of causes to be infinite it would have no beginning and no end, meaning the series would have always existed and so would each cause exist eternally. Now if one cause causes and effect, and it in turn causes another effect and so on, this amounts to a logical contradiction. In a series of causes, one cause depends on another cause for its existence, but if the causes in an infinite series existed infinitely, then each cause did not cause another cause to exist. We can not have an infinite series of causes. Although once begun, the series can be maintained infinitely by the Uncaused Cause, God

Except this only talks about what God has done or does. It does not even begin to talk about what God is. It doesn’t speak anything about his essence. So I would wager that this framework is insufficient to speak of God.

 

[icamhif]

Is the fact that God lacks Potentiality essential to the Unmoved Mover Argument? Just because something has the potential to change, doesn’t necessarily mean that it has a cause beyond itself. Can God, for example, cause Himself to change?

 

[ynotzap]

Forgive me if I make a lot of logical leaps as I ask this question, but here it goes:
Vatican 1 teaches that rational reason alone can prove with certainty the existence of God. If the best philosophical arguments for God are in Thomist philosophy, which is rooted in Aristotlian metaphysics, does that mean that Aristotlean metaphysics (formal and final cause, potentiality and actuality, etc.) is a dogma of the Catholic Church?

I am being sabotaged, this is the second time I am answering your question, my original post was stopped. The Catholic Church as far a dogmas are concerned, is only concerned with Faith and Morals, and only is concerned with other matters when they interfere with Her teachings of Faith and Morals. The teachings of St. Thomas synthesizes matters of reason with Faith, to show Faith is reasonable, and does not contradict reason. Some of the principles of reason are integrated with doctrine, such as the Transubstantiation (Communion) Metaphysics encompasses the study of being, (ontology) psychology (the study of life, and the soul, Epistemology ( the study of knowledge), Cosmology (the study of the Universe) etc. All of these studies are by the light of human reason. Scholastic philosophy is the philosophy adopted by the Catholic Church, it is not dogma. St. Thomas has perfected some of the teachings of Aristotle, and adopted others and applied them to the Faith, and actually shows were reason and Faith are not in conflict. eg. reason shows God exists, Faith identifies Him.
You must understand that I am not infallible, and what I state is to the best of my knowledge, and not to be in conflict with the Church’s teachings

 

[icamhif]

I am being sabotaged, this is the second time I am answering your question, my original post was stopped. The Catholic Church as far a dogmas are concerned, is only concerned with Faith and Morals, and only is concerned with other matters when they interfere with Her teachings of Faith and Morals. The teachings of St. Thomas synthesizes matters of reason with Faith, to show Faith is reasonable, and does not contradict reason. Some of the principles of reason are integrated with doctrine, such as the Transubstantiation (Communion) Metaphysics encompasses the study of being, (ontology) psychology (the study of life, and the soul, Epistemology ( the study of knowledge), Cosmology (the study of the Universe) etc. All of these studies are by the light of human reason. Scholastic philosophy is the philosophy adopted by the Catholic Church, it is not dogma. St. Thomas has perfected some of the teachings of Aristotle, and adopted others and applied them to the Faith, and actually shows were reason and Faith are not in conflict. eg. reason shows God exists, Faith identifies Him.
You must understand that I am not infallible, and what I state is to the best of my knowledge, and not to be in conflict with the Church’s teachings

I appreciate your posts Ynotzap. They are very informative. I’m so sorry for making you repeat yourself.

 

[ynotzap]

Is the fact that God lacks Potentiality essential to the Unmoved Mover Argument? Just because something has the potential to change, doesn’t necessarily mean that it has a cause beyond itself. Can God, for example, cause Himself to change?

It is potentiality that makes for change, or movement. A Being that is Pure Being has no potentiality, potentiality moves towards being. In God there is no movement towards being, In His essence He is Existence and Being, so He is complete,(in a manner of speaking His capacity is filled completely). He never had a capacity to be filled, He is the source of all being. If He had a capacity (potency) to be He would not be Pure Being. Therefor in Him there is no change or movement, even though He causes movement in created things, that is why He is called, the Unmoved mover. If He had the capacity (potency to be), He couldn’t have Existence as His nature, to be means to exist. He also is Pure Being, in God His attributes are His essence, they are one in Him. The act of existing is called "esse, essence means “what a thing is” when applied to God, it means "not what God is, but that He is, we must think of Him existentially It is a logical contradiction to say “God can cause Himself to change”, to change means God has potency, only created things have potency, God is the Creator, not the created, God creates potency. Man can not cause himself to exist, he has a beginning in time, and he depends on an Uncaused cause to exist.

 

[ynotzap]

I appreciate your posts Ynotzap. They are very informative. I’m so sorry for making you repeat yourself.

No need to feel sorrow, I am pleased that I can help, and I appreciate your concern

 

[ynotzap]

Except this only talks about what God has done or does. It does not even begin to talk about what God is. It doesn’t speak anything about his essence. So I would wager that this framework is insufficient to speak of God.

Nothing can be the ultimate cause of it’s own existence, if it’s existence is caused by another, that thing whose existence differs from it’ essence, must have it’s existence caused by another This can not be true of God, because we call God the Ultimate cause. It is impossible that in God His existence should differ from His essence. Existence makes every nature actual, they can only be spoken of as actual because they exist. God’s essence is His existence If God is the Creator of all things good, and beautiful, and intelligent, then these things must proceed from Him who is the fullness of the good, the beautiful, and intelligent, Since God is simple, and One, His attributes are His essence, the Ultimate good, beautiful, and intelligent. He is intelligence, the good, and the beautiful. He can not give what He doesn’t have. God is pure Spirit, non-material, the source of all life, that is why the human soul is made to the image and likeness of God, it is non-material, spiritual the source of life in the human body that makes the human body (it’s form), it doesn’t need matter to exist, it subsist in God. The way to understand God’s essence, is to understand what God is not, and this will take a lot of explaining. I have given you some positive aspects, but by no means a complete answer.

 

[icamhif]

I’m sorry if this has been answered already (in which case, you can refer me back to the earlier post), but I’m still struggling to convince myself out of the possibility that the Unmoved Mover may just be the Laws of Physics. I mean, the Laws of Physics are immaterial concepts, so can it be Pure Actuality, just like God?

Note: From reading this thread, you might get the impression that I’m doubting the existence of God. I am not. I believe He exists with all my heart. I’m just struggling to convince myself that Aquinas’s Unmoved Mover Argument stands up to all scrutiny.

 

[icamhif]

I’m sorry if this has been answered already (in which case, you can refer me back to the earlier post), but I’m still struggling to convince myself out of the possibility that the Unmoved Mover may just be the Laws of Physics. I mean, the Laws of Physics are immaterial concepts, so can it be Pure Actuality, just like God?

Note: From reading this thread, you might get the impression that I’m doubting the existence of God. I am not. I believe He exists with all my heart. I’m just struggling to convince myself that Aquinas’s Unmoved Mover Argument stands up to all scrutiny.

If I have to answer my own question, I suppose it’s that the Law of Physics has a distinction between essence and existence, while Unmoved Mover has no such distinction.

 

[ynotzap]

I’m sorry if this has been answered already (in which case, you can refer me back to the earlier post), but I’m still struggling to convince myself out of the possibility that the Unmoved Mover may just be the Laws of Physics. I mean, the Laws of Physics are immaterial concepts, so can it be Pure Actuality, just like God?

Note: From reading this thread, you might get the impression that I’m doubting the existence of God. I am not. I believe He exists with all my heart. I’m just struggling to convince myself that Aquinas’s Unmoved Mover Argument stands up to all scrutiny.

Speaking of laws, you are always dealing with immaterial concepts, abstracted from the mental representation of material objects by the mind (the intellect, a power to know, a power of the immaterial soul) Physics is a science dealing with the properties, changes, interactions etc. of matter and energy, with natural things, including the quantitative level of reasoning (the second level or degree of abstraction or reasoning) Metaphysics (ref post #33),Ontology is the branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles and seeks to explain the nature of being and reality It is the branch that supplies us with what we know about God, the science of Being as Being

Metaphysics deals with the third level of reasoning, the qualitative level in the study of ontology. Science will ask what is Energy, it will answer, E=MC2, matter in motion at a measured rate of speed. Metaphysics will ask, what is the nature of motion, what is the nature of matter, how did it come to exist? It seeks the ultimate causes and effects in nature, and by using self-evident principles of logic, found in objective reality, answers those questions. Our scientific world does not transcend to an immaterial (we call spiritual) reality, it remains earth bound to matter. You will not find investigation as to the existence of God in material science. The distinction between essence and existence will not be answered by science, but by Scholastic Metaphysics, in the study of Ontology. It is very abstractive, and difficult. Ontology is the study of being as being. We have a great advantage in our Faith to verify what we learn about God eg. Jesus said," before you came to be, I Am," again from the “Burning Bush " God answered.” I Am Who Am" (Ontology would answer, He is saying He Is Existence)