Question about Aquinas's Arguments for the Existence of God

[thinkandmull]

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

You would still have to prove the Uncaused Cause doesn’t by nature change in ways throughout eternity, and also that It is not changed in ways by its relations with us

 

[thinkandmull]

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 not sure if Vatican I taught that we can PROVE from reason there is a God. It said we can KNOW *with *our reason that there is a God. Pius XII and Pius XI though taught in encyclicals that when a human has sufficient time and freedom to consider the question, he will come to belief in God unless something extra-ordinary prevents the belief

 

[thinkandmull]

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.

Being His own existence only means He is uncaused. He has his own existence, instead of us who are caused to exist. Your post states, but instead needs to argue, that God cannot change Himself, change naturally, or be change non-substantially by His relation to us. Maybe I am speaking just as a Novus Ordo Catholic instead of a Latin Mass Catholic, but you are assuming you know God’s essence. There could be many things you don’t know about God, this that fluctuate with beauty

 

[thinkandmull]

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)

“Scholastic Metaphysics” is open to debate in the Church. There has always been debate on issues within the Church.

God is bound to reality “in front of Him” in the sense that certain great goods cannot become fruit without God allowing pain. However, does reality bound God Himself? Or is God reality itself? That is an open question. If God is bound by reality in creating (in “front of Him”), perhaps is He bound by reality “behind Him”, or IS He reality?

 

[ynotzap]

I am not sure if Vatican I taught that we can PROVE from reason there is a God. It said we can KNOW *with *our reason that there is a God. Pius XII and Pius XI though taught in encyclicals that when a human has sufficient time and freedom to consider the question, he will come to belief in God unless something extra-ordinary prevents the belief

From every effect the existence of the cause can be clearly demonstrated, and so we can demonstrate the existence of God from His effects, though from them we can not perfectly know God as He is in His essence. St. Paul states that we can know the existence of God and His power by the things that He created (paraphrased)

 

[icamhif]

I am not sure if Vatican I taught that we can PROVE from reason there is a God. It said we can KNOW *with *our reason that there is a God. Pius XII and Pius XI though taught in encyclicals that when a human has sufficient time and freedom to consider the question, he will come to belief in God unless something extra-ordinary prevents the belief

Interesting distinction. I suppose that’s open to either interpretation.

Thinkandmull, may I ask what philosophical system you most subscribe to? Do you agree with Aristotelian metaphysics, such as the Four Causes and the distinction between Potentiality and Actuality? And if not, why not?

 

[ynotzap]

“Scholastic Metaphysics” is open to debate in the Church. There has always been debate on issues within the Church.

God is bound to reality “in front of Him” in the sense that certain great goods cannot become fruit without God allowing pain. However, does reality bound God Himself? Or is God reality itself? That is an open question. If God is bound by reality in creating (in “front of Him”), perhaps is He bound by reality “behind Him”, or IS He reality?

How can God be bound by reality when He is Reality. That which exists can be given existence, or that which exists can have existence as it’s nature. We who are not, are, because of He who is. It is human experience that we can not create or give existence to ourselves, nor can any finite creature.

 

[icamhif]

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)

Thanks for the constructive post, Ynotzap. I’ll keep in mind the distinction between three levels of reasoning as I inquire about this further.

 

[Richca]

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

Yes, this is true. God, who is pure act, possesses the fullness of being and perfection in an infinite degree and from all eternity. No being can be added to God which he does not already possess or already is. God is Being itself. Change is a movement from potentiality to actuality. So, for a being to change in whatever manner, it must be in potentiality to change. God cannot change because there is no potentiality in him to change, otherwise he wouldn’t be pure act or possess the fullness of being. Nor would he be the first mover or God because what changes from potentiality to actuality needs a being in actuality to cause the change. Nothing can give itself what it does not possess.

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?

 

[thinkandmull]

From every effect the existence of the cause can be clearly demonstrated, and so we can demonstrate the existence of God from His effects, though from them we can not perfectly know God as He is in His essence. St. Paul states that we can know the existence of God and His power by the things that He created (paraphrased)

In that post I was simply referring to Vatican I on how we can know God with our reason

 

[thinkandmull]

Interesting distinction. I suppose that’s open to either interpretation.

Thinkandmull, may I ask what philosophical system you most subscribe to? Do you agree with Aristotelian metaphysics, such as the Four Causes and the distinction between Potentiality and Actuality? And if not, why not?

I believe that spiritual experiences are important, whether one’s understanding is in accord with the supernatural order or not, and I say this because we live in the material earthly world and any thought we have of the supernatural even when true may be far from what we think. For example, if I have an idea of God’s goodness, I may think of my grandmother and say “God is like that”; true, but* just to my understanding*. For to really see God is to see him in a whole other place, in a whole other time, in a whole other way. Potentiality and actuality are things that a lot of posters think about to bring spiritual awareness. But we are free in the Church to think of this matters as we wish. The keyboard here… it is a type of matter, and there is a God, creator… Making it into four causes is just the scholastics enjoying the minds God gave them

 

[thinkandmull]

Followers of the scholastics like to put things in categories, even God. Consider that some spiritual experiences are first of an infinite good, and then an infinite good(?), then an infinite good?, then an infinite ?, then an infinite** ??!**, then OMG, and back again the simply “infinite good” state, and then back to earth.

The problem with Richa’s post is that it makes God’s goodness stationary in the costume of “having it all”. When we say that God’s grace is in us, we think almost completely with our imagination. Not now can we really understand what this truth will mean to us on the other side.

 

[thinkandmull]

I am not saying that happiness is not in Heaven. But we on earth enlarge on our idea of earthly happiness and think Heaven is in that direction. It could be wholly different from what we imagine. Same with God’s goodness. Only if you take goodness as a quantity will you say that God cannot change. Perhaps He changes always from one vibration of love to another without thereby only partially having goodness. In relation to us He has an increase in happiness when we do could, so he accidentally increased the happiness He had