The fault in Aquinas' First Way

[Partinobodycula]

I don’t think you are trying to touch my heart; are you?

Unequivocally and unashamedly…YES!!!

And oddly enough, that may actually be the answer to your next question. What I need to know, is that I can.

If you’re really there, will you listen?

 

[JuanFlorencio]

Unequivocally and unashamedly…YES!!!

And oddly enough, that may actually be the answer to your next question. What I need to know, is that I can.

If you’re really there, will you listen?

Certainly, dear Partinobodycula, I would listen. Does it prove anything to you?

 

[thinkandmull]

I think argument of the OP is sound. The First Way is incomplete without the Third and Second Ways. How do you know the universe isn’t necessary in itself, although the motion is caused eternally by the first mover

 

[ChainBreaker]

I think argument of the OP is sound. The First Way is incomplete without the Third and Second Ways. How do you know the universe isn’t necessary in itself, although the motion is caused eternally by the first mover

Well, we are dealing with “summaries” as opposed to a fleshed out treatises of metaphysics itself. You have to understand and agree with metaphysics first before you can agree with any of the 5 arguments for God’s existence.

All the arguments are incomplete unless you first have a metaphysical understanding of potency and act. Do you understand the distinction between act and esse?

Motion itself involves a coming into being of states, forms, accidents or otherwise, that did not exist accept as potency; and potency in and of itself cannot bring itself into being.

1. An essence that is identical to its act or esse cannot change because its nature is “act”, and therefore exists necessarily as whatever it is. There can be no changing of essence or form. There can be no accident, because its essence is necessarily actual.
2. An essence that is not identical to its act can change precisely because its essence is not identical to it’s act. Therefore such essences do not exist necessarily.

Now, you can question concepts such as potency and act, or the esse and essence distinction, but then the problem isn’t with the five ways but rather it is with metaphysics itself.

 

[Partinobodycula]

Well, we are dealing with “summaries” as opposed to a fleshed out treatises of metaphysics itself. You have to understand and agree with metaphysics first before you can agree with any of the 5 arguments for God’s existence.

All the arguments are incomplete unless you first have a metaphysical understanding of potency and act. Do you understand the distinction between act and esse?

Motion itself involves a coming into being of states, forms, accidents or otherwise, that did not exist accept as potency; and potency in and of itself cannot bring itself into being.

1. An essence that is identical to its act or esse cannot change because its nature is “act”, and therefore exists necessarily as whatever it is. There can be no changing of essence or form. There can be no accident, because its essence is necessarily actual.
2. An essence that is not identical to its act can change precisely because its essence is not identical to it’s act. Therefore such essences do not exist necessarily.

Now, you can question concepts such as potency and act, or the esse and essence distinction, but then the problem isn’t with the five ways but rather it is with metaphysics itself.

You appear to have misunderstood the OP. But that’s probably my fault. So I’ll rephrase it.

The OP simply posits that there’s no way to show that the Creator and the Unmoved/Mover must be one and the same. Because the act of creating something, and the act of putting it in motion are two separate and distinct things. Creation involved the act of creating matter, which possesses potency. The act of motion then involves moving that matter from a state of potency to a state of actuality. These are two distinct acts.

In the First Way Aquinas identifies the Unmoved/Mover with God. By this identification, it appears that we’re to assume that the Unmoved/Mover and the Creator are one and the same. But by what logic or reason does Aquinas hold this to be true?

MUST the Unmoved/Mover and the Creator be one and the same? If such a relationship can’t be definitively established then Aquinas is wrong in identifying the Unmoved/Mover as God.

That’s the OP in a nutshell.

 

[ChainBreaker]

You appear to have misunderstood the OP. But that’s probably my fault. So I’ll rephrase it.

The OP simply posits that there’s no way to show that the Creator and the Unmoved/Mover must be one and the same. Because the act of creating something, and the act of putting it in motion are two separate and distinct things. Creation involved the act of creating matter, which possesses potency. The act of motion then involves moving that matter from a state of potency to a state of actuality. These are two distinct acts.

This is a mistake. Actualising potency is the act of creation.

Yes, God creates a thing. But in order for the thing to stay in existence God has to give that thing more existence. You are thinking of motion as if it pertains to a thing that already has existence and is simply moving while existing. That is not correct.

Its motion is an actualisation of more “act” - actuality. A thing is constantly becoming real. It does not have its own existence.

Creation is like a melody that God is playing on a piano. It will exist so long as the melody is being played. If Gods stops playing the melody, the melody will no-longer exist. If God stops creating the universe, it will cease to exist.

 

[Partinobodycula]

I’m sorry, but can you clarify your argument. Because it appears to be just a restating of my argument.

Yes, God creates a thing.

So we’re in agreement, God created some “thing” which possessed potency. This I would agree is the act of creation? He who created the “thing” was the Creator.

You are thinking of motion as if it pertains to a thing that already has existence and is simply moving while existing. That is not correct…

You’ve already agreed to this point. You said that God created a “thing”. The “thing” possesses potency. The “thing” then moves from potency to actuality. All the while possessing actuality in some things, and potency toward other things. The “thing” has two distinct attributes at the same time, it exists, and it moves. If you disagree with this, then which of the attributes doesn’t it possess?

We agree that God created the “thing”. But the question is, what moves the “thing”? Aquinas’ First Way would seem to argue that the Unmoved/Mover moves it. But what’s to say that the Creator and the Unmoved/Mover are one and the same?

It could just as easily be argued that God the Creator made the “thing” but something else moved the “thing”.

Can you show that the Creator and the Unmoved/Mover must be one and the same?

But as I say, perhaps I simply don’t understand your argument, and it would probably be helpful if you clarified it for me.

 

[thinkandmull]

This is a mistake. Actualising potency is the act of creation.

Yes, God creates a thing. But in order for the thing to stay in existence God has to give that thing more existence. You are thinking of motion as if it pertains to a thing that already has existence and is simply moving while existing. That is not correct.

Its motion is an actualisation of more “act” - actuality. A thing is constantly becoming real. It does not have its own existence.

Creation is like a melody that God is playing on a piano. It will exist so long as the melody is being played. If Gods stops playing the melody, the melody will no-longer exist. If God stops creating the universe, it will cease to exist.

You are making too many assumptions. Maybe God can create something and leave it alone, being sustained by its new existence. Aquinas proves very little in this area, if anything. Perhaps the universe is necessary and motion contingent, with a First Mover, but not Creator. BTW, God is not Unchanging Act. He acts-creates, thus changes ontologically His what He knows to exist. If His thoughts are Him, than HE changes. Aquinas’s ideas are kinda weird

 

[ChainBreaker]

You are making too many assumptions.

I don’t make assumptions.

Maybe God can create something and leave it alone, being sustained by its new existence.

That is logically impossible. That which is not necessarily real does not exist by its own power or nature. Out of nothing comes nothing. Thus all created things are always dependent upon God for power and reality since God is the only source of these principles. We exist “in” God’s intellect and we are sustained “in” reality by the power of God’s mind. We cannot exist outside of Gods existential power for there is no existential power apart from God.

It follows necessarily that we cannot exist without God’s power at any moment.

If anything. Perhaps the universe is necessary and motion contingent, with a First Mover, but not Creator.

Change is the actualization of a potential state that did not exist. Reality has been given to that potential state. God is the existential cause of all things and thus God is also the unmoved mover.

BTW, God is not Unchanging Act. He acts-creates, thus changes ontologically His what He knows to exist. If His thoughts are Him, than HE changes. Aquinas’s ideas are kinda weird

Aquinas’ ideas maybe weird but they follow necessarily once you understand that God is the act of existence, and not merely a being among other beings.

God is not a temporal being; it is not God’s nature. Therefore God’s knowledge is not limited to physical factors. From God’s perspective all potency is actual at the same time; the universe has never not been actual from a God’s-eye-veiw.

 

[Partinobodycula]

Change is the actualization of a potential state that did not exist. Reality has been given to that potential state. God is the existential cause of all things and thus God is also the unmoved mover.

If you were hoping that this would clear things up, it really hasn’t.

We probably agree that matter was created ex nihilo, out of nothing. It wasn’t created out of any pre-existing prime matter, or by actualizing some pre-exsting potentiality. It was literally created out of nothing. Now one of the attributes of matter is potency. The potential to change. But having the potential to change doesn’t constitute having the need to change. Case in point, the universe is overflowing with potentialities that never get actualized. Thus matter and its accompanying potency, doesn’t come with a pre-existing need to change. To instill change, we need an Unmoved/Mover. I’ll grant you that God is both the creative cause, and the sustaining cause, of matter’s existence. But neither of these identifies Him as the Unmoved/Mover.

The argument therefore is extremely simple, something caused matter to exist, and something caused matter to move. The challenge is to show that these two causes are one and the same. Simply claiming that there can only be one first cause is insufficient. While it’s true that there can only be one first cause of matter’s existence, and only one first cause of its motion, I see no logical reason why these two causes must be one and the same.

Unless of course you can come up with such an argument, but so far you haven’t. Currently your only argument seems to be, that motion is absolutely necessary for existence, thus that which caused matter’s existence must also have caused it’s motion. But as yet, you haven’t offered any support for this claim.

 

[ChainBreaker]

If you were hoping that this would clear things up, it really hasn’t.

We probably agree that matter was created ex nihilo, out of nothing. It wasn’t created out of any pre-existing prime matter, or by actualizing some pre-exsting potentiality. It was literally created out of nothing. Now one of the attributes of matter is potency. The potential to change. But having the potential to change doesn’t constitute having the need to change. Case in point, the universe is overflowing with potentialities that never get actualized. Thus matter and its accompanying potency, doesn’t come with a pre-existing need to change. To instill change, we need an Unmoved/Mover. I’ll grant you that God is both the creative cause, and the sustaining cause, of matter’s existence. But neither of these identifies Him as the Unmoved/Mover.

The argument therefore is extremely simple, something caused matter to exist, and something caused matter to move. The challenge is to show that these two causes are one and the same. Simply claiming that there can only be one first cause is insufficient. While it’s true that there can only be one first cause of matter’s existence, and only one first cause of its motion, I see no logical reason why these two causes must be one and the same.

Unless of course you can come up with such an argument, but so far you haven’t. Currently your only argument seems to be, that motion is absolutely necessary for existence, thus that which caused matter’s existence must also have caused it’s motion. But as yet, you haven’t offered any support for this claim.

Change is the actualization of a potential state that **did not exist. **

The universe is potentially real before it exists. Potency, however, involves both the potentiality for some form/substance/state/accident to exist and also the teleological end to which it is in act.

A thing cannot change, unless the end to which it is in act is brought into being.

 

[thinkandmull]

I don’t make assumptions.

That is logically impossible. That which is not necessarily real does not exist by its own power or nature. Out of nothing comes nothing. Thus all created things are always dependent upon God for power and reality since God is the only source of these principles. We exist “in” God’s intellect and we are sustained “in” reality by the power of God’s mind. We cannot exist outside of Gods existential power for there is no existential power apart from God.

It follows necessarily that we cannot exist without God’s power at any moment.

Change is the actualization of a potential state that did not exist. Reality has been given to that potential state. God is the existential cause of all things and thus God is also the unmoved mover.

Aquinas’ ideas maybe weird but they follow necessarily once you understand that God is the act of existence, and not merely a being among other beings.

God is not a temporal being; it is not God’s nature. Therefore God’s knowledge is not limited to physical factors. From God’s perspective all potency is actual at the same time; the universe has never not been actual from a God’s-eye-veiw.

I didn’t say God’s knowledge was limited. But God didn’t have to create. He choose to create. So His knowledge of what He did, ontologically, changed. If His Ideas are Himself, than He changed. This is not refutable. Aquinas was wrong.

Also, God the Father brought the Personhood of the Son into existence, a necessary being. So why can’t He give a certain necessity to the world, simply so it can exist without Him acting again?

 

[ChainBreaker]

I didn’t say God’s knowledge was limited. But God didn’t have to create. He choose to create. So His knowledge of what He did, ontologically, changed. If His Ideas are Himself, than He changed. This is not refutable. Aquinas was wrong.

For somebody who claims that Aquinas is wrong you seem to be completely oblivious as to why he argues that God is unchanging.

You simply don’t understand or refuse to acknowledge the metaphysics that Aquinas employs.

Creation is simultaneous with God’s existence. God is eternally creating; it is not a temporal act. God is not physical. God did not spend a moment of time considering whether or not to create. Creation is a timeless act. These facts follow necessarily because God is pure actuality. God is not subject to the laws of physics.

Also, God the Father brought the Personhood of the Son into existence, a necessary being. So why can’t He give a certain necessity to the world, simply so it can exist without Him acting again?

Jesus as a human being is not necessary; Jesus as the word of God is a necessary being. The human being that was Jesus is contingent upon God for his existence.

That which comes into existence is not identical in nature to the act of existence and that is why God cannot create a necessary universe. A necessary universe does not need to be created because its nature is the act of existence.

 

[davidv]

For somebody who claims that Aquinas is wrong you seem to be completely oblivious as to why he argues that God is unchanging.

You simply don’t understand or refuse to acknowledge the metaphysics that Aquinas employs.

Creation is simultaneous with God’s existence. God is eternally creating; it is not a temporal act. God is not physical. God did not spend a moment of time considering whether or not to create. Creation is a timeless act. These facts follow necessarily because God is pure actuality. God is not subject to the laws of physics.

Jesus as a human being is not necessary; Jesus as the word of God is a necessary being. The human being that was Jesus is contingent upon God for his existence.

That which comes into existence is not identical in nature to the act of existence and that is why God cannot create a necessary universe. A necessary universe does not need to be created because its nature is the act of existence.

As I have been corrected on this early on in my involvement in this forum, calling Jesus a human being is incorrect. Jesus is a divine being with a human nature. So to your point, it was not necessary that the Incarnation came to be.

 

[Partinobodycula]

Potency, however, involves both the potentiality for some form/substance/state/accident to exist and also the teleological end to which it is in act.

A thing cannot change, unless the end to which it is in act is brought into being.

ChainBreaker, congratulations, this presents a legitimate argument. I’m not saying that it’s a flawless argument, but it is an argument. It would be helpful if you could flesh it out a bit more though.

I’m undoubtedly oversimplfying, but in principal the argument goes like this, the act of creation isn’t an isolated thing, like creating matter and then setting it in motion towards some intended outcome. Instead creation is an all encompassing act, which includes all of creation from beginning to end. Thus even at its inception matter is in act towards that which it’s meant to become. It doesn’t need to be set in motion towards an outcome because the outcome was inherent in its creation. Therefore change is an implicit part of creation.

If you disagree with this explanation, please feel free to modify or clarify it as you see fit. But at least we’ve got something to work with now, so we’re making progress.

 

[thinkandmull]

For somebody who claims that Aquinas is wrong you seem to be completely oblivious as to why he argues that God is unchanging.

You simply don’t understand or refuse to acknowledge the metaphysics that Aquinas employs.

Creation is simultaneous with God’s existence. God is eternally creating; it is not a temporal act. God is not physical. God did not spend a moment of time considering whether or not to create. Creation is a timeless act. These facts follow necessarily because God is pure actuality. God is not subject to the laws of physics.

Jesus as a human being is not necessary; Jesus as the word of God is a necessary being. The human being that was Jesus is contingent upon God for his existence.

That which comes into existence is not identical in nature to the act of existence and that is why God cannot create a necessary universe. A necessary universe does not need to be created because its nature is the act of existence.

I understand the arguments better than you it would appear. Choosing to create is CONTINGENT, not necessary. If His knowledge, from all eternity, was changed because of His free contingent choose, and His ideas of Him, than He was always changed and changeable.

“That which comes into existence is not identical in nature to the act of existence”. That’s why I was speaking of the Person of the DIVINE Son. You still haven’t shown why a morsel or necessity could not be given to the world so that it didn’t need to be constantly sustained.

 

[thinkandmull]

ChainBreaker, congratulations, this presents a legitimate argument. I’m not saying that it’s a flawless argument, but it is an argument. It would be helpful if you could flesh it out a bit more though.

I’m undoubtedly oversimplfying, but in principal the argument goes like this, the act of creation isn’t an isolated thing, like creating matter and then setting it in motion towards some intended outcome. Instead creation is an all encompassing act, which includes all of creation from beginning to end. Thus even at its inception matter is in act towards that which it’s meant to become. It doesn’t need to be set in motion towards an outcome because the outcome was inherent in its creation. Therefore change is an implicit part of creation.

If you disagree with this explanation, please feel free to modify or clarify it as you see fit. But at least we’ve got something to work with now, so we’re making progress.

He didn’t answer your question. There’s the potency of creating (either from *eternity *or otherwise), and that of sustaining, and maybe that of motion if motion wasn’t included in the creating.

You can’t say this computer **has **existence because that postulates existence of it in your idea as if it could exist with existence. See? IT EXISTS. To say it’s contingent is just to say it was created. To say God **is **His existence is just to say He was wasn’t created. The question is whether the world was create though! ChainBreaker is trying to use the ontological argument of Anselm I guess

 

[thinkandmull]

I think its obvious that God created “by actualizing some pre-exsting potentiality”. I mean, He can’t do the impossible. Nothing comes from nothing. I think the Church has only condemned the idea that it came from another world, older matter, or something like that

 

[ChainBreaker]

I understand the arguments better than you it would appear. Choosing to create is CONTINGENT, not necessary. If His knowledge, from all eternity, was changed because of His free contingent choose, and His ideas of Him, than He was always changed and changeable.

You are simply ignoring my argument because you think you know better. Gods nature is love; God’s will is identical to his nature. God’s nature is identical to the act of existence. It is God’s nature to share, that is the nature of love; to give being to things/to express love and existence. It is God’s nature to create things, and so God wills the actuality of the universe according to his nature. When we share we are doing something analogous to God’s nature, we are co-operating with existence. Thats why a man is called good when he shares and that is why evil is called a privation of being when he does not. God does not choose in the same sense that we do. God chooses according to his nature and nothing else. God is freedom, that is what it means for God to freely choose; it is to fully express ones being without imperfection or limitation. This is not the same thing as human freewill. For example, God cannot choose to be selfish or choose to be evil. It’s metaphysically impossible for God to be evil.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

“That which comes into existence is not identical in nature to the act of existence”. That’s why I was speaking of the Person of the DIVINE Son. You still haven’t shown why a morsel or necessity could not be given to the world so that it didn’t need to be constantly sustained.

That which comes into existence is not identical in nature to the act of existence; thats why it needs to be sustained. If by being an actual man you were identical to the act of existence, then you would always exist since to be a man is to exist. But you are not identical to existence and that is why you have a beginning and require sustenance.

 

[ChainBreaker]

He didn’t answer your question. There’s the potency of creating (either from *eternity *or otherwise), and that of sustaining, and maybe that of motion if motion wasn’t included in the creating.

You can’t say this computer **has **existence because that postulates existence of it in your idea as if it could exist with existence. See? IT EXISTS. To say it’s contingent is just to say it was created. To say God **is **His existence is just to say He was wasn’t created. The question is whether the world was create though! ChainBreaker is trying to use the ontological argument of Anselm I guess

I am not presenting the ontological argument. This is a straw-man of what i am saying.

Existence is a nature. It is God’s nature. Existence is not intrinsic to the “nature” of a human being. You “have” existence but your nature is not existence. Your act is analogous to God, not identical to God. You have simply not fathomed what it means to say God exists. It does not mean the same thing as saying a man exists.

To say that man exists is to say that man has God; not man is God.