The fault in Aquinas' First Way

  • Thread starter Thread starter Partinobodycula
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
ChainBreaker said:
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 from eternity. 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; 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.
Click to expand...
 
Partinobodycula said:
Even if we assume that Aquinas’ First Way is a sound argument, it still contains at least one major fault:

That fault being that although it explains the presence of motion in material things, it doesn’t explain the existence of material things.

The First Way simply posits that everything in motion must have been put in motion by something else, and since an infinite regress is impossible, there must have been a first mover, an unmoved mover. But this does nothing to explain where that which was put in motion came from. It simply argues for an unmoved mover, not a creator.

We could imagine a universe in which nothing was in motion, in which case Aquinas’ First Way would do absolutely nothing to explain the world’s existence. If nothing is in motion, then there would be no need for a first mover.

So Aquinas’ First Way simply argues for God as a manipulator of matter, but not as a creator of it.
Click to expand...
Sounds kind of “LDS”-ish to me.
 
You don’t know what you are talking about. Its heresy to say that God create out of a necessity of His nature.

So if God’s thinks with Himself, when He knows from eternity He decided to create, than His nature grew

God IS existence? Uh, than if I have existence, I am part of God. You’re really confused man…
 
thinkandmull said:
You don’t know what you are talking about. Its heresy to say that God create out of a necessity of His nature.

So if God’s thinks with Himself, when He knows from eternity He decided to create, than His nature grew

God IS existence? Uh, than if I have existence, I am part of God. You’re really confused man…
Click to expand...
If I am not mistaken, that is actually a very Hindu view of things. Well, at least what I can remember about Hinduism.
 
Very much so

See my new thread Popes in theological conflict with each other? on how Aquinas probably went to far in intellectual curiosity about God
 
thinkandmull said:
You don’t know what you are talking about. Its heresy to say that God create out of a necessity of His nature.

So if God’s thinks with Himself, when He knows from eternity He decided to create, than His nature grew

God IS existence? Uh, than if I have existence, I am part of God. You’re really confused man…
Click to expand...
To “have” existence is not the same thing as saying that our “nature” is existence. You are ignoring what i am saying. Or perhaps you just don’t understand it. Saying that God has potency in his perfect nature amounts to a heresy. I wouldn’t throw stones from a glass house.

God doesn’t “think” like humans. God’s mind is pure act. If God is not a temporal being, it is meaningless to speak of God as deciding to create. Creation is a timeless act, and God’s knowledge is simultaneous with all time precisely because God is not a temporal being. No change has occurred in God. Change has only occurred in time. All of time and space in it’s entirety has always existed in God’s mind.
 
thinkandmull said:
You don’t know what you are talking about. Its heresy to say that God create out of a necessity of His nature.

.
Click to expand...
It depends on what you mean. Is it a heresy to say that God necessarily does good? God’s nature is goodness itself and therefore cannot do anything but the good of his nature since he would cease to be God otherwise which is impossible. That is not against the church.

God’s will is identical with the act of his existence/nature. It does not change which is consistent with God’s perfection.

As for God’s freedom, i would read up on Augustine regarding freewill. Or do you think him a heretic too.
 
ChainBreaker said:
God’s will is identical with his nature. It does not change which is consistent with God’s perfection.

As for God’s freedom, i would read up on Augustine regarding freewill. Or do you think him a heretic too.
Click to expand...
I don’t understand how the very fact that God’s will is identical with his nature allows creation. Do you?
 
Bahman said:
I don’t understand how the very fact that God’s will is identical with his nature allows creation. Do you?
Click to expand...
It’s makes sense if God is love, since love by it’s very nature is creative. It shares.
 
Bahman said:
Love is only a mental state hence God cannot be love.
Click to expand...
You experience love as a mental state. It all depends on what you mean by love. Love can also be described as an act. When somebody says you are good they don’t mean you are feeling good.
 
ChainBreaker said:
You experience love as a mental state.
Click to expand...
How could we possibly experience Love if it is the act of existence of God?
ChainBreaker said:
It all depends on what you mean by love.
Click to expand...
We all know what love is since we experience it.
ChainBreaker said:
Love can also be described as an act.
Click to expand...
How? Love by the very notion that we understand is the supporter of an action. Unless you have another interpretation which I would be happy to hear.
 
Bahman said:
How? Love by the very notion that we understand is the supporter of an action. Unless you have another interpretation which I would be happy to hear.
Click to expand...
Your act is good if it reflects the nature of God in giving and sharing. When you help an old lady across the road we are not just talking about a mental state. So you are wrong. The very act in itself is good because you are helping that person towards achieving their teleological end and in turn bringing yourself closer to your teleological end which is ultimately unity with God.
 
ChainBreaker said:
Your act is good if it reflects the nature of God in giving and sharing. When you help an old lady across the road we are not just talking about a mental state. So you are wrong. The very act in itself is good because you are helping that person towards achieving their teleological end and in turn bringing yourself closer to your teleological end which is ultimately unity with God.
Click to expand...
How you could disprove otherwise, that God’s nature is not evil, by evil I mean to don’t help or share and just keep it for yourself.
 
Bahman said:
How you could prove that you owe your very existence to anybody including God? The very fact that you don’t know where you are from doesn’t prove that you have been created.
Click to expand...
I have potency in my being.
 
Bahman said:
You are consciousness. You exist with the very fact that you can experience and act. No experience, no potency hence no act. It is very simple.
Click to expand...
I have potency in my being and therefore i do not perfectly exist. I am not identical to the act of existence.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top