St. Thomas: "The First Way"

[awatkins69]

JD

I’m not trying to annoy you and I’m sorry if I seem tiresome. So, again, I will ask one question, and one question only: Do you think Saint Thomas’ proof works, given Newton’s laws as stated by Newton? This question has nothing to do with whether Newton’s laws are actually correct or not. Take care.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

JD

I’m not trying to annoy you and I’m sorry if I seem tiresome. So, again, I will ask one question, and one question only: Do you think Saint Thomas’ proof works, given Newton’s laws as stated by Newton? This question has nothing to do with whether Newton’s laws are actually correct or not. Take care.

So long as there is such a thing as change and potential form, Thomas Aquinas’ arguments follow necessarily. The science of that which is changing is irrelevant. Thomas Aquinas is not making a scientific argument. A metaphysical argument for God is true of any “logically possible” circumstance regarding a dynamic system.

 

[awatkins69]

So long as there is such a thing as change and potential form, Thomas Aquinas’ arguments follow necessarily. The science of that which is changing is irrelevant. Thomas Aquinas is not making a scientific argument.

So you think that Newton’s first law of motion does **not **contradict the first premise? Do explain. I’m not saying you couldn’t make a case for that. I just don’t understand myself.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

So you think that Newton’s first law of motion does **not **contradict the first premise? Do explain. I’m not saying you couldn’t make a case for that. I just don’t understand myself.

If Newtons law of motion involves “change”, then I don’t see how; since the validity of Aquinas’ arguments rests on the metaphysics of “potentiality” in general, and not any being, state, behaviour, or physical condition in particular.

 

[awatkins69]

If Newtons law of motion involves “change”, then I don’t see how; since the validity of Aquinas’ arguments rests on the metaphysics of “potentiality” in general, and not any being, state, behaviour, or physical condition in particular.

Well, here’s how I framed my problem earlier. This is all supposing that Newton’s first law of motion is true: “Change of location seems to me to be change in the strict sense as well. An object is **potentially **at point A, and then is **actually **at point A, even though it was not put there directly by something else. This is a change from potentiality to actuality. A genuine change, it seems to me.”

The problem is that this seems to be a counterexample to Aquinas’ principle. Thanks for your help.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Well, here’s how I framed my problem earlier. This is all supposing that Newton’s first law of motion is true: “Change of location seems to me to be change in the strict sense as well. An object is **potentially **at point A, and then is **actually **at point A, even though it was not put there directly by something else. This is a change from potentiality to actuality. A genuine change, it seems to me.”

I don’t know much about newtons law of motion, but from what you say here this seems to me to be a legit example of a potentiality being realised in a new location. Whether his law of motion is possible or not is a different question; but at least as long as his law admits of genuine change, then its okay.

The problem is that this seems to be a counterexample to Aquinas’ principle. Thanks for your help.

I suspect that you misunderstand Aquinas’s argument. You are treating it like a scientific argument.

Well, firstly, as I pointed out earlier, nothing physical changes purely in reference to itself. It changes in reference to other beings conditions or natures. For instance, if there is no space, one cannot meaningfully speak of “physical change” or a physical movement to a different location. Thus there are other kinds of causes. However some physical objects do move without a direct cause in the classical sense of one ball pushing another ball. But still, the ball moves in reference to something else or because of something else non-the-less. In general, all change amounts to the realisation of something that wasn’t real, actual, or true.

Secondly, when Aquinas speaks of effects having causes, he is speaking of a cause in the sense of sufficient esse. He is not talking about physical causes. He is talking about the fact that out of nothing comes nothing. Thus if a thing moves from one potential state to the next, this means something has been added that state which did not exist in the first place; in this case, the moving of the ball to a new location, or to a future moment in time. Potentiality cannot come from nothing. Potentiality must be grounded in reality and expressive of reality otherwise it is nothing and will always forever be identical to nothing. That the ball was moving, certainly explains why its in a new location (that’s the scientific explanation), but that does not explain its potentiality to be in a new location, and neither does any possible cause that is itself in potentiality, since the power of its ability to cause something or create a condition in which physical events occur is derived from other potential contingent states of reality.

All of the potentiality or change that exists or will exist - in order to be realised - requires an existential cause; ie, an absolute being that exists absolutely without change or potential in its existence. The universe is one big chain of potentiality; its dynamic. Anything that changes or moves can certainly be said to have participated in the act of reality; but it is not reality by its own nature or form. When a ball comes in to existence, its does not exist because it is a ball, because if that were true, than it would have timelessly existed since it is in the intrinsic nature of a ball to exist irrespective of change. In other words, the reason for the existence of potentiality cannot be itself a potential being, since the existence of potentiality would be left unexplained as if to come out of nothing. The reason for its existence has to be reality by “nature” rather than by participation, and it has to also sustain in existence all potential reality, since potential reality by itself without being is nothing.

This is why no dynamic science could ever dethrone Aquinas’s arguments, because they deal with change in general and being as an “act”, rather than the details of a particular thing or nature (which is the province of science).Thus Aquinas’s arguments are compatible to any “dynamic” science that remains within the confines of its epistemological limits. So, arguments like… “science proves that world popped out of absolutely nothing by itself”… will not earn you any respect on this forum, simply because it exposes those who speak such nonsense as being ignorant about the epistemological limits on what science can say about reality. So do your self favour.

You will probably say something annoying. Let me just say right now that if I suspect that you haven’t properly read what I have said, I will not answer you again. So it will do you a great deal of good to answers this post honestly. Thanks for reading.

Ps. Have you read Edward Fessers book yet?

 

[awatkins69]

You will probably say something annoying.

I read your post. What counts as annoying, so that I can know how to reply?

By the way, a little bit of holy charity would do you well, especially considering how charitable I’m trying to be. You’re supposed to be a Christian. If you don’t want to discuss this with me, you’re under no obligation to, so you have no reason to get upset.

 

[JDaniel]

continued . . .

Let’s take a look at the possibility of multiple first movers:

Upon examining the universe, we discover that nothing moves (except beings, those exigencies usually consisting of parts that are merely unities of efficient causes) except that it is moved by something else. Now, this something else is a primary mover or a secondary mover, etc., known to us as efficient movers, or causes. Analogically, take a complicated firework explosive. The efficient cause of its display is the man who ignites its fuse. He is the primary efficient cause. But, there are also secondary efficient causes. The wick is a secondary efficient cause; then the gun powder; then the rapid burning casings. All of these lead to a spectacular display. It might appear that each separate explosion was its own cause, but, a careful assessment shows that they were not, in fact, separate causal occurances but all part of one original cause.

Now, let’s say that we’re at the end of the show, or, even the beginning, it doesn’t matter, and the igniters want to set off a number of explosions. It might take just that one man, the First igniter, or, several men might be employed for the task. Now, if several, and if we recede only to the First igniters (multiplicity), it is obvious we that have not receded far enough. Now, we have to recede through the igniters, through their birth processes, through their parents, etc., etc.

If there were multiple First movers at the beginning of the universe, then either we have not gone back far enough to fully understand the progression of this movers group, or the initial First mover was a Being that consisted of parts. Even multiple efficient causes would still require a First cause of each, or all, of them.

Furthermore, if the First mover was a multiplicity, each would require their own singular, Final Cause, their own separate reason for beginning the various motions. If that were the case, then they would have to have conspired or we would not have the order that is apparent in the universe. Instead it would be chaos. Of course, one could argue that each First mover set its own separate things off in separate directions. However, sooner or later the disorder would begin to become apparent to us. What seeming disorder we do see in the universe is not disorder and does not happen for merely no reasonl. Even the near collision of the Earth’s sun with another sun (seeming disorder) produced our solar system. That was good.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

Taking into consideration Aquinas “Commentary on the Physics”; “Heavy things are moved more with themselves than by themselves” we can have two simple replies;

If an entity is intentionally distinct in it’s parts; then one part may compel the other or the whole; and thus no motivator outside the individual is necessary.

If an entity is formally distinct in it’s parts; then one part may compel the other or the whole; and thus no motivator outside the individual is necessary.

If we take God for an example; the will is distinct (in formal or intentional terms; not real terms) from the potency; but the will may motivate the potency.

There is no potency in God, unless you mean it by its other definition; namely, “strength, or power.”

[SNIPPED]

God bless,
jd

 

[Betterave]

Well, here’s how I framed my problem earlier. This is all supposing that Newton’s first law of motion is true: “Change of location seems to me to be change in the strict sense as well. An object is **potentially **at point A, and then is **actually **at point A, even though it was not put there directly by something else. This is a change from potentiality to actuality. A genuine change, it seems to me.”

The problem is that this seems to be a counterexample to Aquinas’ principle. Thanks for your help.

A counter-example to which principle? Please spell this out.

(If you want to stop being annoying, just pretend that you agree and that your question has been satisfactorily answered.)

 

[MindOverMatter2]

I read your post. What counts as annoying, so that I can know how to reply?

By the way, a little bit of holy charity would do you well, especially considering how charitable I’m trying to be. You’re supposed to be a Christian. If you don’t want to discuss this with me, you’re under no obligation to, so you have no reason to get upset.

I meant the annoying part as a Joke.

I mean no offence, but do you have actual reply to my argument; or is that it?

Sorry if I have been a bit negative or cynical. I go through phases. I’m sure you will get to see my charitable side one day..

 

[awatkins69]

I meant the annoying part as a Joke.

I mean no offence, but do you have actual reply to my argument; or is that it?

Sorry if I have been a bit negative or cynical. I go through phases. I’m sure you will get to see my charitable side one day..

I’m sorry. I guess that sometimes text makes it hard to understand when someone is joking. Not your fault. I’ll reply in a minute.

 

[awatkins69]

Well, firstly, as I pointed out earlier, nothing physical changes purely in reference to itself. It changes in reference to other beings conditions or natures. For instance, if there is no space, one cannot meaningfully speak of “physical change” or a physical movement to a different location. Thus there are other kinds of causes. However some physical objects do move without a direct cause in the classical sense of one ball pushing another ball. But still, the ball moves in reference to something else or because of something else non-the-less. In general, all change amounts to the realisation of something that wasn’t real, actual, or true.

The bolded part is what I am trying to understand. How? Change of location is an actual reduction from potentiality to actuality.

**
Secondly, when Aquinas speaks of effects having causes, he is speaking of a cause in the sense of sufficient esse**. He is not talking about physical causes. He is talking about the fact that out of nothing comes nothing. Thus if a thing moves from one potential state to the next, this means something has been added that state which did not exist in the first place; in this case, the moving of the ball to a new location, or to a future moment in time. Potentiality cannot come from nothing. Potentiality must be grounded in reality and expressive of reality otherwise it is nothing and will always forever be identical to nothing. That the ball was moving, certainly explains why its in a new location (that’s the scientific explanation), but that does not explain its potentiality to be in a new location, and neither does any possible cause that is itself in potentiality, since the power of its ability to cause something or create a condition in which physical events occur is derived from other potential contingent states of reality.

I disagree with your interpretation of Saint Thomas, about him only speaking of “esse” and “ex nihilo nihil fit”. He specifically says in the Summa: “Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it.” To use scholastic terminology, his example is **not **substantial change, which you seem to say is the only type of change he means. This is **accidental **change. Saint Thomas even gives a complete explanation of what he means by change (motu): “…motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality.” Thus, physical motion constitutes genuine motion.

All of the potentiality or change that exists or will exist - in order to be realised - requires an existential cause; ie, an absolute being that exists absolutely without change or potential in its existence. The universe is one big chain of potentiality; its dynamic. Anything that changes or moves can certainly be said to have participated in the act of reality; but it is not reality by its own nature or form. When a ball comes in to existence, its does not exist because it is a ball, because if that were true, than it would have timelessly existed since it is in the intrinsic nature of a ball to exist irrespective of change. In other words, the reason for the existence of potentiality cannot be itself a potential being, since the existence of potentiality would be left unexplained as if to come out of nothing. The reason for its existence has to be reality by “nature” rather than by participation, and it has to also sustain in existence all potential reality, since potential reality by itself without being is nothing.

I agree with all of this completely. However, this does not answer anything in regards to the First Way or my objection. This is a different argument, the argument from De Ente et Essentia, and various other places.

This is why no dynamic science could ever dethrone Aquinas’s arguments, because they deal with change in general and being as an “act”, rather than the details of a particular thing or nature (which is the province of science).Thus Aquinas’s arguments are compatible to any “dynamic” science that remains within the confines of its epistemological limits. So, arguments like… “science proves that world popped out of absolutely nothing by itself”… will not earn you any respect on this forum, simply because it exposes those who speak such nonsense as being ignorant about the epistemological limits on what science can say about reality. So do your self favour.

I agree with all of this as well. But it doesn’t answer my objection from Newtonian mechanics to the First Way. I think that the root of our misunderstanding is a misunderstanding of the First Way.

You will probably say something annoying. Let me just say right now that if I suspect that you haven’t properly read what I have said, I will not answer you again. So it will do you a great deal of good to answers this post honestly. Thanks for reading.

Ps. Have you read Edward Fessers book yet?

Sorry again that I misunderstood you. As for Feser, I have not gotten his books, because I don’t have money. However, as soon as I can I will. I read his blog all the time.

 

[awatkins69]

I think you’re not being honest. What exactly is the problem here. He is talking about place and void. Nothing too complex at all.

No. Newton’s Axiom only works in an idealized situation. (But, it may be useful nonetheless.)

How? Where? This is becoming very tiresome.

Actually, I think you’re not knowledgeable and are attempting to puff up.

Well, then ask them.

God bless,
jd

Jd, you replied to every single thing I said except the one that really mattered, and the one I specifically asked you to! Again, my question is simply this: Do you think Saint Thomas’ proof works, given Newton’s laws? I don’t mean to ask whether you think the laws are in fact laws. If so, how?

 

[JDaniel]

The bolded part is what I am trying to understand. How? Change of location is an actual reduction from potentiality to actuality.

AW:

Quite correct.

I disagree with your interpretation of Saint Thomas, about him only speaking of “esse” and “ex nihilo nihil fit”. He specifically says in the Summa: “Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it.” To use scholastic terminology, his example is **not **substantial change, which you seem to say is the only type of change he means.

Correct in part. Aquinas means any motion or change. But, he also means change or motion correctly understood. While not expressed in his words, the change from wood to ash is substantial change. But, you probably knew this.

This is **accidental **change.

Just making the wood hot would be accidental change. But, turing it to ash is substantial change.

Saint Thomas even gives a complete explanation of what he means by change (motu): “…motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality.” Thus, physical motion constitutes genuine motion.

Correct. Physical motion correctly understood.

I agree with all of this as well. But it doesn’t answer my objection from Newtonian mechanics to the First Way. I think that the root of our misunderstanding is a misunderstanding of the First Way.

You asked me this question several times and, for the life of me, I don’t understand it. I’ll ask it another way, “How might Newtonian mechanics affect the First Way?” In fact, the way I see it, there is no problem. Here is Newton:

Every body continues in its state of rest, or of uniform motion in a right [straight] line, unless it is compelled to change that state by forces impressed thereon.

Projectiles continue in their motions, so far as they are not retarded by the resistance of the air, or impelled downwards by the force of gravity. A top, whose parts by their cohesion are continually drawn aside from rectilinear motions, does not cease its rotation, otherwise than as it is retarded by the air. The greater bodies of the planets and comets, meeting with less resistance in freer spaces, preserve their motions both progressive and circular for a much longer time. - The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy

, transl. A. Motte, rev. F. Cajori (Berkeley, 1947), p. 13.

God bless,
jd

 

[awatkins69]

You asked me this question several times and, for the life of me, I don’t understand it. I’ll ask it another way, “How might Newtonian mechanics affect the First Way?” In fact, the way I see it, there is no problem. Here is Newton:

God bless,
jd

Thanks JD. What I’m trying to understand is, if nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something actual: how can an object be reduced from potentially being in point A to actually being in point A, even though this reduction was not caused **directly **by something else. As MOM said, “However some physical objects do move without a direct cause in the classical sense of one ball pushing another ball.” What I’m trying to understand is how this is possible. Thanks again.

 

[JDaniel]

AW:

Let’s take a look:

Every body continues in its state of rest, or of uniform motion in a right [straight] line, unless it is compelled to change that state by forces impressed thereon.

Projectiles continue in their motions, so far as they are not retarded by the resistance of the air, or impelled downwards by the force of gravity. A top, whose parts by their cohesion are continually drawn aside from rectilinear motions, does not cease its rotation, otherwise than as it is retarded by the air. The greater bodies of the planets and comets, meeting with less resistance in freer spaces, preserve their motions both progressive and circular for a much longer time. - The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy, transl. A. Motte, rev. F. Cajori (Berkeley, 1947), p. 13.

St. Thomas says, with Aristotle, that anything that moves, is moved by something other than itself. That seems to be precisely what Newton says, in his first line.

St. Thomas, along with Aristotle, is aware of resistence and properly iterates it with little difference from Newton.

Am I missing something for you?

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

Thanks JD. What I’m trying to understand is, if nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something actual: how can an object be reduced from potentially being in point A to actually being in point A, even though this reduction was not caused **directly **by something else. As MOM said, “However some physical objects do move without a direct cause in the classical sense of one ball pushing another ball.” What I’m trying to understand is how this is possible. Thanks again.

AW:

Remember, “motion,” as used by St. Thomas, is used in its wider sense and includes coming-to-be. In this case, if you are speaking of the stuff of the universe, then it was Created. If it wasn’t, then it was moved into its point A by the Big Bang forces.

The ball, MoM was talking about, moves firstly, by being pushed by the cue ball, then, subsequently, by the real force(s) of inertia and its revolving caused by the cue ball. Each moment it is progressing forward, on the table, it is continuing in motion according to Newton’s Axiom, and is being retarded by that same Axiom. Correctly observed, each partial rotation was initially caused, and is being slowed down by other forces.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

Thanks JD. What I’m trying to understand is, if nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something actual: how can an object be reduced from potentially being in point A to actually being in point A, even though this reduction was not caused **directly **by something else. As MOM said, “However some physical objects do move without a direct cause in the classical sense of one ball pushing another ball.” What I’m trying to understand is how this is possible. Thanks again.

What objects “move without a direct cause in the classical sense of one ball pushing another ball.” - if not the following?

One example is the uniting of gametes into the blastula, for a new baby. That is motion, in the wider sense. Another would be a plane. But its forward momentum is caused by its propeller or engines. The movement of the heavenly bodies is from the force of the big bang, and the lack of resistance. Is this helpful?

God bless,
jd

 

[awatkins69]

What objects “move without a direct cause in the classical sense of one ball pushing another ball.” - if not the following?

One example is the uniting of gametes into the blastula, for a new baby. That is motion, in the wider sense. Another would be a plane. But its forward momentum is caused by its propeller or engines. The movement of the heavenly bodies is from the force of the big bang, and the lack of resistance. Is this helpful?

God bless,
jd

I think I see what you’re getting at. I suppose we could say that the motion of an object is always caused by the energy transferred to it.