The fault in Aquinas' First Way

  • Thread starter Thread starter Partinobodycula
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
**“God therefore neither wills evil to be done, nor wills it not to be done” **Aquinas, on Whether God wills evils?. Sure he says something different in other parts of the article, but he still says the above.
 
Averroes professed the greatest esteem for Aristotle. The word of the Stagirite was for him the highest expression of truth in matters of science and philosophy. In this exaggerated veneration for the philosopher he went farther than any of the Schoolmen. Indeed, in the later stages of Scholastic philosophy it was the Averroists and not the followers of Aquinas and Scotus who, when accused of subservience to the authority of a master, gloried in the title of “Aristotle’s monkey”.

Old Catholic Encyclopedia
 
thinkandmull said:
No, if Aquinas’s position on grace is true, than God could have given everyone the grace to stop the hate and get to heaven as a blessed elect. Aquinas thought it was better to have an inferno to display justice. He and Augustine were in great darkness when they taught this
Click to expand...
Well, believe whatever you want. It is clear you don’t need the Church or the help of Aquinas or anyone else.

Linus2nd
 
I do obey the Church. You say that just because I don’t believe Aquinas and Augustine’s evil opinion that God created a universe in which He could have saved everyone while will allowing the good of fighting for love and yet He rathered to have reprobates to show his wrath? If Aquinas was Hitler you’d still follow him I guess
 
I try to keep to the issues, but its you how thinks you know more and so you throw insults around. There are many things Catholics are allowed to disagree with each other on. “God therefore neither wills evil to be done, nor wills it not to be done” is not one of them
 
thinkandmull said:
I try to keep to the issues, but its you how thinks you know more and so you throw insults around. There are many things Catholics are allowed to disagree with each other on. “God therefore neither wills evil to be done, nor wills it not to be done” is not one of them
Click to expand...
I agree God does not will evil, but permits it that he might bring about a greater good.

I’m sorry you feel insulted, that is not my intention.

Linus2nd
 
Aquinas drops “God therefore neither wills evil to be done, nor wills it not to be done” like a bomb in the article I cited above.

In 1281, the Franciscan William de la Mare responded to several parts of Aquinas theology in his Correctoruium fratris. I’d like to see that

I don’t see how anyone, Calvinist and Thomistic predestinationalist, can believe that its not better for everyone to be in Heaven with their Father. That’s the sole reason I have a beef with Aquinas
 
thinkandmull said:
Aquinas drops “God therefore neither wills evil to be done, nor wills it not to be done” like a bomb in the article I cited above.

In 1281, the Franciscan William de la Mare responded to several parts of Aquinas theology in his Correctoruium fratris. I’d like to see that

I don’t see how anyone, Calvinist and Thomistic predestinationalist, can believe that its not better for everyone to be in Heaven with their Father. That’s the sole reason I have a beef with Aquinas
Click to expand...
It is also what the Chruch teaches.

Linus2nd
 
“No one would be better than another if he were not loved and helped more by God” (St. Thomas, Ia, q. 20, a. 3).
So if two people were given the same grace, one could not receive it with greater goodness? Not according to Aquinas. God’s grace is infallible he says, and won’t save everyone, although He protects Himself from blame by giving merely sufficient grace
 
I tried to explain to Imelahn on two occasions the shocking error of Augustine and Aquinas on this issue. I think I got through

De correptione et gratia, chap. 14: “It is not to be doubted that human wills cannot hinder the will of God, which did whatever it willed in heaven and on earth, from doing what it wills, when as a matter of fact it does what it wills, when it wills, with these very wills of men. . . . Having, beyond any doubt, the most omnipotent power of inclining human hearts to what it pleases.” But this would be false if grace were rendered efficacious by our consent. Indeed, Augustine declares (ibid.) that “God acts within, takes hold of hearts, moves hearts, and draws men by their wills which He Himself operates within them; if, therefore, when God wills to establish rulers on earth, He has the wills of men in His power more than they have themselves, who else acts that the reproof may be beneficial and may produce amendment in the heart that receives it?”
 
thinkandmull said:
“No one would be better than another if he were not loved and helped more by God” (St. Thomas, Ia, q. 20, a. 3).
So if two people were given the same grace, one could not receive it with greater goodness? Not according to Aquinas. God’s grace is infallible he says, and won’t save everyone, although He protects Himself from blame by giving merely sufficient grace
Click to expand...
I don’t pretend to know how God’s grace works, if he gives more grace for purposes of salvation than another. And I don’t think the Church teaches anything definite. I think it is better not to look too closely in the the question of predestination.

Linus2nd
 
thinkandmull said:
I tried to explain to Imelahn on two occasions the shocking error of Augustine and Aquinas on this issue. I think I got through

De correptione et gratia, chap. 14: “It is not to be doubted that human wills cannot hinder the will of God, which did whatever it willed in heaven and on earth, from doing what it wills, when as a matter of fact it does what it wills, when it wills, with these very wills of men. . . . Having, beyond any doubt, the most omnipotent power of inclining human hearts to what it pleases.” But this would be false if grace were rendered efficacious by our consent. Indeed, Augustine declares (ibid.) that “God acts within, takes hold of hearts, moves hearts, and draws men by their wills which He Himself operates within them; if, therefore, when God wills to establish rulers on earth, He has the wills of men in His power more than they have themselves, who else acts that the reproof may be beneficial and may produce amendment in the heart that receives it?”
Click to expand...
I agree, this is evident from reading the Bible.

Linus2nd
 
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...
You are not making the connection.

You are saying God started motion but not creation.

This is because the universe always existed but it was created. Because something does not come from nothing. Comprende?
 
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...
I have submitted answers before, and I want to add another:

If the Creator and the Un-moved mover are not one, and the argument for each leads to the uncaused cause of each which is God, then we must assume their are two gods. One for each argument. Assuming that we had two gods, then they are not the same, in order to be two there is something that distinguishes one from the other, that something has existence or being. Now it is understood that God is Pure Being and Pure Act. Yet if one had something different than the other, one of those gods wouldn’t possess pure being, and neither would the other. So the argument is contradictory, you can not have two gods only one. Therefore the Creator, or uncaused cause, and the Un-moved mover are one and the same. The truth is implicit in the argument of the Un-moved mover as I stated before. I also mentioned that multipicity is the sign of created entities.
 
I think that Aquinas’ purpose in the first way was just to find the Unmoved Mover, a being that was pure act and therefore uncaused himself. And that would satisfy a remedial definition for God.

I have often wondered myself whether or not creation must be brought in to bolster the argument. As the arguments stands, creation is not mentioned and Thomas does not bring it up until much later and then he explicitly says we know it strickly from Revelation and the teaching of the Church, by faith.

Linus2nd
 
Linusthe2nd said:
I agree, this is evident from reading the Bible.

Linus2nd
Click to expand...
Molinist interpretations on those verses are just as valid. And God would be downright evil if He could save everyone and didn’t, and you know better. You know what Fatherhood means
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top