The Existence of God: The Argument From Motion

[STT]

STT OBJECTION 2:
(1) Knowledge is about the relationship between things
(2) This requires that knower has a form
(3) God (omniscient) is formless
(4) (2) and (3) contradict each other
(5) Therefore (3) is wrong

This means that either God is not omniscient or He has form. Which one do you pick up?

REPLY TO STT OBJECTION 2: By assuming that knowledge is physical you beg the question against the argument. It has been established that the Unmoved Mover is immaterial. It has been established by the Principle of Proportionate Causality that the form must exist within God virtually. This was done without first assuming restrictions on the nature of knowledge. If you wish to object that knowledge must be material and deny that abstract universals can be said to be true, that must first be established before any contradiction to the argument for the Unmoved Mover’s omniscience can be claimed.

There is not such a thing as virtual form. There is only physical form which this is not possible without the stuff which takes form. This means that a pure immaterial being, mind for example, cannot have knowledge.

 

[STT]

I will address the rest of your points later.

 

[Wesrock]

Let me change my argument to adjust it with your notation:

(1) Creation is not perfect (we know this by fact)
(2) God is pure act and is the creator
(3) Creation must be perfect as God is pure act (God cannot create imperfect since otherwise He is responsible for privation, evil, etc.)
(4) (1) and (3) contradict each other
(5) Therefore (2) is wrong

This means that God is either not pure act or He is not the creator. Which one do you pick up?

Premise number three is wrong. He is responsible for privation in created beings. There is no reason to say He is not.

There is not such a thing as virtual form. There is only physical form which this is not possible without the stuff which takes form. This means that a pure immaterial being, mind for example, cannot have knowledge.

STT. Please answer. Would “there is no such thing as abstract form” still be true even if no human minds existed to think it? Would 1+1 =2 still be true if there were no human minds to think it?

 

[STT]

Let me change my argument to adjust it with your notation:

(1) Creation is not perfect (we know this by fact)
(2) God is pure act and is the creator
(3) Creation must be perfect as God is pure act (God cannot create imperfect since otherwise He is responsible for privation, evil, etc.)
(4) (1) and (3) contradict each other
(5) Therefore (2) is wrong

This means that God is either not pure act or He is not the creator. Which one do you pick up?

That is against wisdom to create imperfect when you can create perfect. Would you do that?

There is not such a thing as virtual form. There is only physical form which this is not possible without the stuff which takes form. This means that a pure immaterial being, mind for example, cannot have knowledge.

You get nothing out of nothing. That is the principle that I believe that you also accept it. You need stuff to have form. No stuff, no form.

And also, abstract form can only be experienced by intelligent beings. No intelligent being no experience. They do not exist objectively.

 

[STT]

Reply to post 1 of 8:

Only stable things need an external mover. An unstable thing could move on its own by definition.

 

[STT]

Reply to post 3 of 8:

Things with essence, mind for example, do not need a sustainer. There are two objections here though: (1) How one can be sure that elementary particles do not have mind? (2) How can one sustain things with essence when they can create a chain of causality themselves? That requires the knowledge of when the chain is created. This cannot be known in advance. There are problems related to foreknowledge that we can discuss it if you wish.

 

[IWantGod]

The bottom line is, we cannot have an infinite regress of dependency without the existence of that which is not dependent on anything else for it’s existence. If a thing exists that is dependent on another things existence, that cause and effect relationship can regress infinitely, but that regress cannot exist at all if there is not a being that sustains all dependent things in existence and is not dependent on anything else for it’s existence.

The reason an infinite regress of dependent beings cannot exist on it’s own is because there is no cause or effect in an infinite series that is responsible for the existence of the series. They are all intermediate causes in so much that they are all recipients of existence but none of them are the source of their existence. None of them are the reason for why there is anything at all in the first place since they are all dependent So there must be an uncaused-cause.

 

[IWantGod]

Things with essence, mind for example, do not need a sustainer.

But human intelligence, while it has freewill, is still dependent on other things for it’s “existence”. Thus we cannot considered it to be an uncaused-cause in the existential sense of the word.

 

[STT]

Things with essence, mind for example, do not need a sustainer.

We cannot be sustained exactly because of the fact that we have free will. How God could sustain our decisions when they are supposed to be originated from ourselves?

 

[IWantGod]

We cannot be sustained exactly because of the fact that we have free will.

You nature is free to act once it has existence, but that doesn’t mean that it is not dependent on anything else for its existence. Evidently your mind began to exist, so it’s utterly ridiculous to argue that you are an uncaused cause and do not require sustenance for your existence…

If you was an uncaused cause in the metaphysical sense of the word there are only two possibilities… Your mind has either always existed eternally or it popped out of nothing.

Let me know when you have joined us in the real world.

 

[STT]

We cannot be sustained exactly because of the fact that we have free will.

I already argue that mind cannot be sustained: How God could sustain our decisions when they are supposed to be originated from ourselves? This means that our mind is self-sustained.

My mind just get attached to real world at the moment. It has always existed though. It just didn’t have the opportunity to intervene in this world. This is pretty close to your system of belief. You however believe that soul/mind is created at the moment of conception and get attached to matter. I think that mind cannot be created though.

 

[gregoryphealy]

That is against wisdom to create imperfect when you can create perfect. Would you do that?

You might argue that a “perfect man” is constrained to act in one particular way, and by extension, a perfect God would be even more constrained to act in a particular way. But there’s a difference between “perfect” as we, the object of creation, define it and “perfect” as is applicable to the creator. For us, a choice is good or better or perfect before we choose it. We are temporal beings. God (particularly before all of creation) was/is not temporal. Therefore there is no analogy between our deliberation of what is “perfect” and God’s. God’s creation is good because He is good, and He has voluntarily willed to create it. We have no analogous means to analyze God in this respect, or as Aquinas put it:

that God does not necessarily will some of the things that He wills, does not result from defect in the divine will, but from a defect belonging to the nature of the thing willed, namely, that the perfect goodness of God can be without it; and such defect accompanies all created good. ( Summa Theologiae Ia, 19, 3 ad 4)

Moreover, God is not bound to will anything but His own nature. That is to say, He is not bound to will the most perfect creation.

Since then God necessarily wills His own goodness, but other things not necessarily, He has free will with respect to what He does not necessarily will. (S.T. Ia, 19, 10)

So, as @Wesrock pointed out, (1) and (2) are true, but (3) is not.

 

[STT]

So according to Aquinas that it is impossible to create/be human with perfect nature? Isn’t Jesus perfect? He has human nature.

 

[Wesrock]

I expect to have some free time Wednesday and Thursday evenings to formally reply to the new questions.

 

[AlNg]

How God could sustain our decisions when they are supposed to be originated from ourselves?

Since we have free will, our free decisions cannot have any cause outside of ourselves. So the human is the first cause of his free decision. Therefore there are many causes which are not caused outside of our own free choices.Further, there are many events which do not have outside causes but are random events. Some events can be probed only statistically and there is no sign of any external cause. For example, radioactive emissions.
In any case, because of free will, there is such a thing as a rebel without a cause.

 

[Wesrock]

Reply to post 1 of 8:

Only stable things need an external mover. An unstable thing could move on its own by definition.

I’m going to need clarification on what you mean here. Any potential that is actualized requires an external mover, whether that is a part of a greater whole or by something completely external. What is an “unstable thing” by definition. Do you have some examples or an explanation so that I can better respond?

Reply to post 3 of 8:

Things with essence, mind for example, do not need a sustainer.

Why do you suppose this is true, because I certainly disagree.

There are two objections here though: (1) How one can be sure that elementary particles do not have mind? (2) How can one sustain things with essence when they can create a chain of causality themselves? That requires the knowledge of when the chain is created. This cannot be known in advance. There are problems related to foreknowledge that we can discuss it if you wish.

I don’t consider (1) an objection, as I disagree with your point that a mind doesn’t need a sustainer.

As for (2), can a power outlet sustain a randomized computer program in operation even if it has no foreknowledge of what the random program will follow? For God and time, please see “REPLY TO STT OBJECTION 1” (post# 57). For further ideas on causation (including on the idea of a sustainer of the mind), please refer to “REPLY TO OBJECTION 7” (post# 8) before responding.

 

[STT]

STT:

Reply to post 1 of 8:
Only stable things need an external mover. An unstable thing could move on its own by definition.

I’m going to need clarification on what you mean here. Any potential that is actualized requires an external mover, whether that is a part of a greater whole or by something completely external. What is an “unstable thing” by definition. Do you have some examples or an explanation so that I can better respond?

Anything which is not actualized has potential to move. We have two sort of things though: (1) stable and (2) unstable. Stable thing needs a external mover whereas unstable thing does not need a mover.

STT:

Reply to post 3 of 8:
Things with essence, mind for example, do not need a sustainer.

Why do you suppose this is true, because I certainly disagree.

Because decision must be originated from us not the sustainer.

STT:

There are two objections here though: (1) How one can be sure that elementary particles do not have mind? (2) How can one sustain things with essence when they can create a chain of causality themselves? That requires the knowledge of when the chain is created. This cannot be known in advance. There are problems related to foreknowledge that we can discuss it if you wish.

I don’t consider (1) an objection, as I disagree with your point that a mind doesn’t need a sustainer.

That is already answered in the previous comment.

As for (2), can a power outlet sustain a randomized computer program in operation even if it has no foreknowledge of what the random program will follow? For God and time, please see “REPLY TO STT OBJECTION 1” (post# 57).

There is not such a thing like pure randomized computer program. All pseudo-random program use a seed which is initiated by an agent decision. Therefore a mind can sustain a pseudo-random program in operation without the foreknowledge since in reality a pseudo-random program is a deterministic program.

For further ideas on causation (including on the idea of a sustainer of the mind), please refer to “REPLY TO OBJECTION 7” (post# 8) before responding.

I don’t believe in randomness in radioactive decay. The reality is deterministic in absence of any agent intervention with free will.

 

[Wesrock]

Anything which is not actualized has potential to move. We have two sort of things though: (1) stable and (2) unstable. Stable thing needs a external mover whereas unstable thing does not need a mover.

I asked for examples of stable things and unstable things. I’m waiting, because I’ve no idea what you’re referring to.

Because decision must be originated from us not the sustainer.

I referred to REPLY TO OBJECTION 7 for a reason as it’s pertinent to this objection. Let me restate it with some substitutions.

Furthermore, the objection also makes assumptions about causation that we need not necessarily make. For it may just be in the nature of the human will to have free will, and in that sense the efficient cause of the will is the cause of the free will itself. It may be easier to think of causation in terms of “ontological dependence” instead of purely mechanical reactions. Furthermore, for a cause to be sufficient to explain its effect, it is not necessary that it cause it in a deterministic way. It need only make the effect intelligible.To simply say you do not accept this view of causation or you do not accept natures would be to beg the question.

To expand on this more, I do not accept that proposition that all causes produce necessary effects. I disagree with your restricted understanding of causation. To be a cause of the human person only means that it causes it to continue operating according to its voluntary nature. It does not remove the will’s ability to choose. Therefore choices are made by the will itself. Stating that the will is ontologically dependent on a cause does not mean it is involuntary.

 

[AlNg]

Any potential that is actualized requires an external mover,

Your concepts are out of date because all motion is relative. What is moving or in motion in one frame, is fixed and immobile and not moving at all in a different frame.

 

[Wesrock]

“Motion” in this context refers to the concept of change in general. A “mover” would just be a cause of some sort.