I don’t think it’s clear what kind of causation Aquinas is working with here (there are multiple interpretations of these by different thomistic schools) but even granting that he’s working with essential causation, my objection stands:Your objection works against accidentally ordered series, but he was speaking of essentially ordered series and they cannot go infinitely deep. Why? There would be no motion/change because each member of the series is potential and requires an external force to actualize their potentials. If there is no first mover, the series cannot move. We do not arrive at God yet with this proof, and must be read in context of the other four.
Ok, apparently you’re incapable of grasping that my objections don’t deal with temporality so I won’t be interacting with you on this matter any more (deja vu?).A thing taken out of context can be misunderstood. Hopefully that is not your intention (it probably is, and if it is not, then you are incredibly ignorant of what Aquinas actually teaches).
When Aquinas makes statements such as the one you have quoted, he is not saying that a temporal infinity cannot hold; he is not arguing for the existence of a “temporal first mover”. He is speaking about the fact that potentiality depends on actual reality for its existence. Since all potentiality needs actual reality in-order to possibly exist, it really does not matter if there is an infinite regression of events, since they are all potential events; they all borrow reality. Therefore none of those events, nothing dynamic - infinite or not, can be said to be the source or cause of its reality, since they all at one point lacked reality. It would be a contradiction to say that an infinite regression of potential events is the source of actual reality because potentiality cannot exist without an actual reality that is not itself a potential event. Thus an infinite regression of events does not explain the existence of that infinite regression.
If you study Aquinas properly, you will understand this. My feeling is that you simply don’t have the capacity to grasp the concepts involved and will continue to make bad judgments on that which you clearly don’t understand.
You are ignoring my objection to your straw-man of Aquinas. It seems that all you can do is moan and assert that he has been refuted.
Ridiculous.
I’m only aware of one thomistic “school”, which is Thomism. Proper understanding of Aristotle’s metaphysics and Aquinas’s framework only leads to one understanding of the arguments he presented.I don’t think it’s clear what kind of causation Aquinas is working with here (there are multiple interpretations of these by different thomistic schools) but even granting that he’s working with essential causation, my objection stands:
Each member requires the previous member to be in act. The series cannot go infinitely deep because each member has no self ability to actualize their potentials, if they could there would be no motion. This is where we arrive at a first mover in the series, and simply establishing that the series is dependent on a first mover.In an infinite series of essential causation, each member of the series has an external force to actualize its potential. There doesn’t need to be a first mover.
A Dodge; just as i predicted. You are incapable of understanding that an infinite regress as a rebuttal only makes sense if you are attempting to refute a temporal first cause. Aquinas is not defending a temporal first cause. Therefore your argument is irrelevant insofar as the validity of his claims are concerned.Ok, apparently you’re incapable of grasping that my objections don’t deal with temporality so I won’t be interacting with you on this matter any more (deja vu?).
If its an infinite series of potential events, i certainly can infer that none of those event can rationally be said to be the reason why the infinite series exists.What would it mean to explain an infinite series anyways? If it’s infinite, you can’t very well take it as a whole now can you?
Another assertion that refuses to address my argument as it stands. That only says something about your inability to rationally defend your position.I doubt Aquinas was concerned with the PSR here either, and if that’s the route you wish to take, so much the worse for your version.
That you use to be Catholic is irrelevant to whether or not your argument is rational.For the record, I’ve been Catholic most of my life and even went to seminary. I have no idea why you think you know so much on these issues, but it’s stopped being humorous at this point and is just getting frustrating.
As Fergus Kerr notes in After Aquinas: Versions of Thomism, the five ways have many different powerful and persuasive interpretations. He notes, frequently, that the neo-thomist’s have introduced new readings of the arguments utilizing metaphysical principles. This is contrasted by the French interpretation heralded by theologians like the Jesuits Marcel Chossat (1862–1926) and Henri de Lubac (1896-1991). The prestigious Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique describes this position clearly:I’m only aware of one thomistic “school”, which is Thomism. Proper understanding of Aristotle’s metaphysics and Aquinas’s framework only leads to one understanding of the arguments he presented.
In an infinite series there would be no need for a member with the self-ability to actualize their potentials. Each member is actualized by a previous member. There is no member unactualized by a previous member. You seem to be suggesting that such a series has an infinitely remote beginning point, and this point would need to be actualized by something; but, in an infinite series there is no beginning (causal, temporal, whatever the series is etc.).Each member requires the previous member to be in act. The series cannot go infinitely deep because each member has no self ability to actualize their potentials, if they could there would be no motion. This is where we arrive at a first mover in the series, and simply establishing that the series is dependent on a first mover.
Members with the self-ability to act? One, that is a logical impossibility in our world. Two, like stated if this were the case, there’d be no motion at all for every member would have already actualized their potentials, given an infinite past. We have motion and in this reality things can’t actualize their potentials by themselves and require an external force/agent, ergo we have a first mover.In an infinite series there would be no need for a member with the self-ability to actualize their potentials. Each member is actualized by a previous member. There is no member unactualized by a previous member. You seem to be suggesting that such a series has an infinitely remote beginning point, and this point would need to be actualized by something; but, in an infinite series there is no beginning (causal, temporal, whatever the series is etc.).
Why would an infinite past imply there’d be no motion at all? If there was an infinite past, things would be exactly as they are now except that if you tried to catalog past events, you’d never succeed in cataloging all of them. The only thing that would change is the amount of events, but the events themselves wouldn’t change.Members with the self-ability to act? One, that is a logical impossibility in our world. Two, like stated if this were the case, there’d be no motion at all for every member would have already actualized their potentials, given an infinite past. We have motion and in this reality things can’t actualize their potentials by themselves and require an external force/agent, ergo we have a first mover.
If there was an infinite past, all potentials would be actual and all series would be motionless.Why would an infinite past imply there’d be no motion at all? If there was an infinite past, things would be exactly as they are now except that if you tried to catalog past events, you’d never succeed in cataloging all of them. The only thing that would change is the amount of events, but the events themselves wouldn’t change.
Hmm, where motion is understood as the reduction of potency to act:If there was an infinite past, all potentials would be actual and all series would be motionless.
Ugh, this difficult doing this on a phone. I’ll respond tonight on my computer.Hmm, where motion is understood as the reduction of potency to act:
I asked why an infinite regression would imply the absence of motion, and you replied because it implies that all potency is reduced to act. That seems tautologous to me.
Imagine a number line with 0 at the far right, and the line continues on with negative integers forever to the left. Now, suppose each number on this line represents an actualized potency. Does it make sense to say that because the line extends indefinitely leftward, that the line can’t extend further rightward? Why couldn’t the line begin counting positive numbers after 0, simply because the left line has no beginning?
I saw JD explained it well on your thread about this. Before I continue, I’d like to place onus on you of motion and infinite past. How is there motion given that the series goes infinite in the past and infinite in the future (you can treat that as temporality or as causality)? Also, how do you explain the here and now?I asked why an infinite regression would imply the absence of motion, and you replied because it implies that all potency is reduced to act.