St. Thomas Aquinas - is "necessary being" the ultimate argument of his for the existence of God?

[RebeccaJ]

Sorry to butt in, but have you seen post number 17 yet? I am interested in your response.

Hi. Yes, thank you for the explanation. It takes a bit more reading and digesting than a short reply regarding course content.

My initial response is, I agree. However, I struck up a conversation last night regarding this with my husband, who is an atheist. So I have your reply and our conversation in my head, and I’m trying to get it to synthesize. I might need a day or so.

Thanks again.

 

[Moscati]

This was exactly the problem Aquinas saw with Anselm’s famous argument. That which nothing greater can be thought of is merely a logical concept, not a really existing one.

This is what is so attractive about Aquinas – he was an honest thinker. Perhaps the most honest there ever was. I find it appalling that he is not required reading in philosophy 101 courses simply because he has been branded a “theologian” and therefore partisan. He is the cleanest thinker I’ve ever encountered, i.e. following things where they led rather than to predetermined ends. Moderns could learn so much from him if they’d merely listen. Sadly, it’s only Catholics who seem to take him seriously.

I second this! The one and only philosophy course I was able to fit into my pre-med college schedule was Moral Philosophy, and I was appalled that we completely skipped Aquinas. We did Epicures, the Stoics, Plato, Aristotle, and then literally skipped to Machiavelli. The professor: “There’s no real philosophy there in the Middle Ages–it was all about angels and whatnot.” I feel like we could have skipped the last three lectures on logical positivism to spend some time on Aquinas . . .

 

[punkforchrist]

JP2Admirer:

Sadly, it’s only Catholics who seem to take him seriously.

There’s always Norman Geisler.

 

[RebeccaJ]

MindOverMatter2- would you say existential nihilism is the opposite of existential causality?

 

[RebeccaJ]

We can see that things “exist”. They have a reality and an act or nature; and in perceiving their reality we are given the ability to conceive of concepts such as “objective truth” . Objective truth is what you might call the existential facts of reality as opposed to non-reality. They are existential in that they “exist” in opposition to absolute nothingness, and they are objective insofar as they are not the manifestations of your imagination.

I don’t know what “they” is.

We see that things have causes, and causes have effects. We come to realize that there are things which exist now that did not exist before. We see change. Some are small, and some our more fundamental. We see push and shove causality and mechanistic functionality. But we should also become aware of something more intimately true. We perceive the “potentially real”. We can see that a things “being” in reality, in the here and now, is not a product of its own nature or act in the present. They are not real by virtue of their own “natures”.

Why? Anything I can see that is real that is its nature, otherwise, it would not exist and then it would either not have a nature, or its nature has changed. And so it is something else. Are you saying everything has an unnatural nature?

If they were necessarily real by nature, they would have always existed without potentiality, and that means that they would exist timelessly, because that which is existence by nature exists irrespective of change.

What of going forward to death?

It cannot have a beginning or an end. It cannot lose its reality to the “past”, or have a potential future, because its existence is intrinsic to its being, and thus its being is absolutely true. If i confirm that such a beings existence is true, then that truth must contain the entirety of its existence. Thus we know that at least some natures do not have existence as a property. Their “esse” is not the same as their essence. Thus without the sustaining virtue of “esse” as a distinct act in its own right, there can be no essence.

This is confusing.

We know from metaphysical logic that out of nothing comes nothing and that it is impossible for absolute nothingness to be objectively real; for nothing is not a positive reality by definition. That is to say that, if you said to me that nothing actually existed as a nature, then you would in fact be saying that nothing is actually something, for the simple fact that you are giving it a reality and a nature by saying that it exists. But this cannot be true, because “absolute nothingness” contains no reality and thus cannot be included in objectively “true” statements about that which exists or is natural.

Then nothingness cannot be proved or disproved.

Thus existence is an absolute. It’s impossible for there to not be a reality, because for there to be otherwise would result in a contradiction. So we know that there must be such a thing as “reality” or existence before there can be anything else; also there is the fact that we have knowledge of it either directly or indirectly of sense perception. We also know that the future, and everything it contains, is potentially real in respect of the present reality.

We only know this because of our experience, which is not comprehensive of every possibility.

Thus we must acknowledge that the future “receives reality” from something else, and that therefore all time or change and everything it contains is receiving reality. Natures are coming “into” reality; they are not causing it. We must accept by force of logic that all change is potential reality. Thus anything that is changing is not a reality by virtue of its nature or act, but rather it exists because something has given to it its existence and actuality.

I was thinking about it on my drive down the mountain this evening. If I am in my car here and one second later I have moved 1/60th of a mile to a point that previously was in the future. The forest around me exists. The road exists. I exist. I think you are saying that all these things bring themselves into existence at every future moment. Like the frames of a movie, each frame being made because it must or all would cease to exist.

This “giver of the real”, must exist by virtue of its own nature and its nature has to be existence (its esse is the same as its essence

). It must also be timeless, because its esse is intrinsic to its essence (Its esse is its essence), which is the reason why it is ultimate eternal and necessary (sounds like a particular God you might know?). Thus there is not merely a push and shove causality or a mechanistic functionality in nature, but rather there is also an “Existential cause”. Yes. But other religious philosophies call it something else.

This is what I mean by the term “existential cause”. Anyone hoping to be successful in producing a logical argument for Gods existence would do well by using the concept of an existential cause as a template for future production. Once you understand the fundamental relationship between esse and essence, you will be on your way to understanding Aquinas’ 5 ways. Until then, you will not grasp the full power of his work.

Eastern philosophy, which I lived and studied for a few years, has a very developed idea of “being”. In that vein of thought, we are not our true natures, but are becoming that nature. Catholicism has this idea, though in a different context. That is, our full potential is not existing now, yet we exist. You are taking it one step back and saying potential to exist is itself existence. If that is so, then all things have an existence at all times, not just God.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Eastern philosophy, which I lived and studied for a few years, has a very developed idea of “being”. In that vein of thought, we are not our true natures, but are becoming that nature. Catholicism has this idea, though in a different context. That is, our full potential is not existing now, yet we exist. You are taking it one step back and saying potential to exist is itself existence. If that is so, then all things have an existence at all times, not just God.

You have largely misunderstood what i have said here, which is understandable. But i cannot give you a substantial comment right now until tomorrow.

What i will say is that the term “absolutely nothing”, in so far as it relates to reality, is by definition the absence of reality. Thus you cannot rationally say that nothing is a reality. Its a contradiction. Nothing is not a positive description of reality, but rather, when the word is used, it is used only to say that something that did exist at some point no-longer has existence. But that is not the same as saying that a being has taken on a new “nature” that is nothing. There is no truth in nothing. “Nature” is not nothing, it is something; it is a truth. Therefore there is a reality that is an absolute eternal truth and is the root of being, rather than just a potential reality that receives the truth of its reality from its root.

As for potentiality, nothing that has the potential to exist, can bring itself into existence since it does not yet exist. Something has the potential to be real because a being is giving it that potential. “Potentiality” is something which is going to be real. Potentiality is not yet a being or reality, but it is going to be. Potentiality is based upon the actuality of other beings which were also potentially existent. The future is potential reality, but it is not real until it receives reality from something else. The present is real in relation to the past. The past was potentially real also in so far as it received its potential future from that which preceded it in being. Therefore all beings that are changing are receiving reality and a nature or act. Any being that is changing only gives rise to other beings because it has received its reality from something else that preceded it in being; and thus it is only a medium to reality, not the creator of reality. Thus anything that is changing, cannot be described as absolute reality itself, since it has received it from that which preceded it; and neither can potential reality be the absolute cause of potential reality because it is receiving reality. Thus there must be an absolute changeless timeless reality in which potential beings are actualized.

 

[RebeccaJ]

You have largely misunderstood what i have said here, which is understandable. But i cannot give you a substantial comment right now until tomorrow.

What i will say is that the term “absolutely nothing”, in so far as it relates to reality, is by definition the absence of reality. Thus you cannot rationally say that nothing is a reality. Its a contradiction. Nothing is not a positive description of reality, but rather, when the word is used, it is used only to say that something that did exist at some point no-longer has existence. But that is not the same as saying that a being has taken on a new “nature” that is nothing. There is no truth in nothing. “Nature” is not nothing, it is something; it is a truth. Therefore there is a reality that is an absolute eternal truth and is the root of being, rather than just a potential reality that receives the truth of its reality from its root.

As for potentiality, nothing that has the potential to exist, can bring itself into existence since it does not yet exist. Something has the potential to be real because a being is giving it that potential. “Potentiality” is something which is going to be real. Potentiality is not yet a being or reality, but it is going to be. Potentiality is based upon the actuality of other beings which were also potentially existent. The future is potential reality, but it is not real until it receives reality from something else. The present is real in relation to the past. The past was potentially real also in so far as it received its potential future from that which preceded it in being. Therefore all beings that are changing are receiving reality and a nature or act. Any being that is changing only gives rise to other beings because it has received its reality from something else that preceded it in being; and thus it is only a medium to reality, not the creator of reality. Thus anything that is changing, cannot be described as absolute reality itself, since it has received it from that which preceded it; and neither can potential reality be the absolute cause of potential reality because it is receiving reality. Thus there must be an absolute changeless timeless reality in which potential beings are actualized.

I’m getting potentiality=absolute nothing. Because we don’t like to say nothing exists we’re going to call it something else.

OR

Absolutely nothing does not exist, but potentiality does. So how is saying potentiality exists also saying it doesn’t exist?

I guess this could bring new meaning to “I knew you before you were formed”.

A question out of curiosity: why do you post under two nicknames?

 

[RebeccaJ]

Why can’t there be a infinite regression of movers and causes?

 

[MindOverMatter2]

I’m getting potentiality=absolute nothing. Because we don’t like to say nothing exists we’re going to call it something else.

Its not because i don’t like it. It is because it is metaphysically impossible for there to be such a thing as a reality that is not real.

My word usage is probably the cause of your confusion. A few people have complained to me about this. Please, let me try again.

A nature is the essence of a thing, its act, its way of being, and, depending on what kind of nature we are speaking about, perhaps its weight shape and colour. If a nature is real, then that nature is real for two possible reasons. It is either real by nature, or real by participation. If a being is real by nature, this means that reality is intrinsic to its nature; it cannot fail to exist because this would contradict its nature. If a nature begins to exist, it is because a being that already exists gave it the potentiality to be real. By itself, a potential nature does not have it in its nature to exist, and that is made evident by the fact that it began to exist. If it was in its nature to exist it would have timelessly existed without potentiality or cause. It would already exist; it wouldn’t need a precedent cause. So, it is true when somebody says that we are not reality by nature. This is because our being real, is due to our participation in the nature of the real; rather than because of our selves. A new nature does not become reality by “nature”, but rather it comes into reality; it is actualized by reality, animated and sustained by it. Without the potentiality to be real, which is given to it by reality, a possible nature cannot begin to exist; the future cannot be actualized. Its essence is not esse.

OR
Absolutely nothing does not exist, but potentiality does. So how is saying potentiality exists also saying it doesn’t exist?

Potentiality, by itself, is not a being, but rather, potentiality describes a process of “becoming”. Potentiality is when one nature is in the process of bringing into existence the actuality of another nature.

I guess this could bring new meaning to “I knew you before you were formed”.

Interesting.

A question out of curiosity: why do you post under two nicknames?

I had a password account error, and so i had to make a new account.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Why can’t there be a infinite regression of movers and causes?

Perhaps there can be an infinite regression of movers and causes. But if each mover or cause began to exist, then this is evidence that each mover or cause does not have it in its own nature to exist; but rather it received its reality from something else. They are all participating in reality. They are not reality itself or the cause of it. They are not the existential cause.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

MindOverMatter2- would you say existential nihilism is the opposite of existential causality?

First, please, give an explanation of what you think Existential nihilism is.

 

[RebeccaJ]

First, please, give an explanation of what you think Existential nihilism is.

Objective nothingness.

 

[RebeccaJ]

My word usage is probably the cause of your confusion. A few people have complained to me about this. Please, let me try again.

OK, this is the understanding, or conclusion, I came to when writing my paper. Thanks.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Perhaps there can be an infinite regression of movers and causes. But if each mover or cause began to exist, then this is evidence that each mover or cause does not have it in its own nature to exist; but rather it received its reality from something else. They are all participating in reality. They are not reality itself or the cause of it. They are not the existential cause.

Thanks.

 

[Hypatia]

Thanks.

If your paper is on Thomas, though, you should note that Thomas denies the possibility of an infinite regress altogether. He does NOT make the argument above (i.e. that an infinite chain is possible, but you would still need to explain why there is something rather than nothing, etc.).

 

[RebeccaJ]

If your paper is on Thomas, though, you should note that Thomas denies the possibility of an infinite regress altogether. He does NOT make the argument above (i.e. that an infinite chain is possible, but you would still need to explain why there is something rather than nothing, etc.).

I wrote in my paper: “it is not reasonable to say that moving things being moved by other moving things regresses infinitely” to which my professor commented: “Why?”.

It is why I asked the question.

 

[Hypatia]

I wrote in my paper: “it is not reasonable to say that moving things being moved by other moving things regresses infinitely” to which my professor commented: “Why?”.

It is why I asked the question.

If all you were assigned was I.2 (where the 5 ways are found), then it is a somewhat unfair question. Thomas does not address the issue in his proofs for the existence of God. See I.7.2-4 though, where Thomas does address this particular topic.

Thomas basically argues that an effect which is dependent on an infinite chain of causes would never come to be, because, by definition, one cannot traverse such an infinite chain.

 

[RebeccaJ]

If all you were assigned was I.2 (where the 5 ways are found), then it is a somewhat unfair question. Thomas does not address the issue in his proofs for the existence of God. See I.7.2-4 though, where Thomas does address this particular topic.

Thomas basically argues that an effect which is dependent on an infinite chain of causes would never come to be, because, by definition, one cannot traverse such an infinite chain.

No assignment straight to Aquinas’ writings. Its all textbook, and professor, me taking notes. I can’t say the textbook or the professor are unbiased. Both are obviously atheist.

When I was writing the paper I looked for the “why” of no infinite regression. I couldn’t find it in the text or my notes, so I left it as an obvious assertion. OH well. It doesn’t hurt me all that much. I’m still on the “A” track.

 

[punkforchrist]

Why can’t there be a infinite regression of movers and causes?

You might consider it inductively:

1. Every attribute of nature we have observed is finite.
2. The regress of causes found in nature is an attribute of nature.
3. Therefore, the regress of causes in nature is most likely finite.

(2), I think, is fairly obvious, so that leaves us with (1). Gravity, electromagnetism, etc., each have limitations, and only finite things have limitations, so (1) appears much more likely than its negation. Given (1) and (2), (3) is the best explanation. And, if the regress is finite, then there must be a First Cause.

Thomas implicitly uses an inductive argument whenever he mentions the stick moving the stone, while the stick is moved by the hand. However, he also offers deductive reasons against an infinite regress in the Summa Contra Gentiles.

 

[1holycatholic]

No assignment straight to Aquinas’ writings. Its all textbook, and professor, me taking notes. I can’t say the textbook or the professor are unbiased. Both are obviously atheist.

When I was writing the paper I looked for the “why” of no infinite regression. I couldn’t find it in the text or my notes, so I left it as an obvious assertion. OH well. It doesn’t hurt me all that much. I’m still on the “A” track.

Think of a chain of ten dominos - unless the first domino is pushed none of the the intermediate dominos fall, nor will the final domino fall.

Think of a chain of ten thousand dominos - unless the first domino is pushed none of the the intermediate dominos fall, nor will the final domino fall.

Think of an infinite chain of dominos - unless the first domino is pushed none of the the intermediate dominos fall, nor will the final domino fall.

So on that reason alone infinite regress is not possible.

But there’s more. In the example the dominos actually exist in reality. But infinity exists only as a concept and not in reality - there are no actual infinities. It’s impossible to have an infinite amount of dominos because one more can always be added to the set.