The fault in Aquinas' First Way

[Bahman]

I have indeed pointed out the fault a number of times, but I’ll gladly reiterate it.

The fault lies in the last line of the First Way:

“Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other, and this everyone understands to be God.”

The argument as presented however doesn’t establish that the creator and the unmoved mover are one and the same. And I would argue that it’s the creator that everyone understands to be God, not necessarily the unmoved mover. To overcome this fault one must establish that the unmoved mover and the creator are indeed one and the same. The only one who has actually attempted to do this is Triflelfirt, by arguing that the act of creation is simply the movement from potency to actuality. Thus the first mover, the unmoved mover, is indeed the creator. Unfortunately he doesn’t explain where the potency came from. So he’s tantalizingly close, but he doesn’t quite get there.

 

[ynotzap]

True

Yes, an explanation is needed, that’s the whole point of Aquinas’ Five Ways, to explain where that which is self-evident came from. Yes, motion exists. Yes, matter exists. But where did they come from? Aquinas attempts to prove that they can only have come from God.

But the point of the OP is that Aquinas’ First Way only explains the movement of things, it doesn’t explain the creation of things.

There have been two basic arguments presented to overcome this shortcoming in Aquinas’ First Way: Triflelfirt’s and Linusthe2nd’s, but they both have flaws.

Triflelfirt argues that the unmoved mover in Aquinas’ First Way is equal to a creator, because creation is simply the act of moving something from potency to actuality. So the unmoved mover is the creator. But this argument has one major flaw, where did the potency come from? Is it eternal, has it, like God, always existed? Linusthe2nd overcomes this problem by proposing that God first created matter, which has potency, and then He actualized that potency. A two step process. But this argument has a number of flaws as well, not the least of which is the fact that it does nothing to address the problem raised in the OP, that the first mover and the creator need not be the same, thus Aquinas’ First Way doesn’t prove the existence of God.

To me Flirtlelfirt’s argument has the most potential for being correct, it simply has to overcome the problem of where the potency came from. Linusthe2nd’s argument on the other hand has a number of flaws which simply can’t be overcome.

But before going into detail as to why each argument is wrong I would like to give Flirtlelfirt and Linusthe2nd a chance to clarify their arguments.

The whole point of the argument was to prove the existence of God as the un-moved mover, not an explanation for the existence of things. I see no fault. The intention was to prove God’s existence through the argument of motion. The self-evidence of motion and things existing would naturally lead to further explanations, and he covered them later. To expect more than was intended is not a justifiable argument to say that it is a fault. God has no potency, He creates potency in things, a real capacity to become, (change) He wills things into existence by giving them contingent being The existence of a Creator is implicit in the argument. God is the un-moved mover of things, it is self-evident that motion and things exist. Now motion is the movement from potency to act (change) and God is the mover. Since things do not have existence as their nature, they are caused to exist and since things are caused to exist, they are caused with the qualities of potency and act as a condition of their nature, for Pure Act can only be God So to have motion is a condition of things that exist, and things that exist are given existence, IOW created. When you prove the existence of God, it implicitly contains this truth True arguments are not always explicit, but still true.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

I have indeed pointed out the fault a number of times, but I’ll gladly reiterate it.

The fault lies in the last line of the First Way:

“Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other, and this everyone understands to be God.”

The argument as presented however doesn’t establish that the creator and the unmoved mover are one and the same. And **I would argue that it’s the creator that everyone understands to be God, not necessarily the unmoved mover. To overcome this fault one must establish that the unmoved mover and the creator are indeed one and the same. **The only one who has actually attempted to do this is Triflelfirt, by arguing that the act of creation is simply the movement from potency to actuality. Thus the first mover, the unmoved mover, is indeed the creator. Unfortunately he doesn’t explain where the potency came from. So he’s tantalizingly close, but he doesn’t quite get there.

Dear Partinobodycula:

I appreciate your response. I have put your objection in bold letters.

First I would like to explain why St. Thomas proceeds as he did. Later, in another message, I will add something to Triflelfirt’s insight.

During my youth, the egregious Doctor St. Thomas Aquinas always defended and protected me. I would never have thought that I could ever defend him. You never know! With all humility, in view of his grandeur and that I am no more a Thomist, I will do my best:

In the Summa, Part I, Question 2, Article 1, Objection 2 St. Thomas wrote:

“Further, those things are said to be self-evident which are known as soon as the terms are known, which the Philosopher (1 Poster. iii) says is true of the first principles of demonstration. Thus, when the nature of a whole and of a part is known, it is at once recognized that every whole is greater than its part. But as soon as the signification of the word “God” is understood, it is at once seen that God exists. For by this word is signified that thing than which nothing greater can be conceived. But that which exists actually and mentally is greater than that which exists only mentally. Therefore, since as soon as the word “God” is understood it exists mentally, it also follows that it exists actually. Therefore the proposition “God exists” is self-evident.”

To which he replied:

“When the existence of a cause is demonstrated from an effect, this effect takes the place of the definition of the cause in proof of the cause’s existence. This is especially the case in regard to God, because, in order to prove the existence of anything, it is necessary to accept as a middle term the meaning of the word, and not its essence, for the question of its essence follows on the question of its existence. Now the names given to God are derived from His effects; consequently, in demonstrating the existence of God from His effects, we may take for the middle term the meaning of the word “God”.”

I would add to the letters that I put in bold (just for you), that as the effects of God are multiple, so are the names He receives.

You need to have this clear before you proceed to the reading of the five ways.

For centuries, there were reflections about the names given to God in the Holy Bible. Those names were certainly multiple. “Creator” was but one of them (In the **Summa, Part I, Question 13 **St. Thomas exposes some reflections about this matter).

Then, the question would be: was “First mover” an expression that was commonly understood as a name of God during the times of St. Thomas? And I will answer “YES”. The Holy Scripture says that nothing happens without God’s will. This is it.

If you want to know if St. Thomas deals with the topic of “God as creator”, I recommend you to read the Summa, Part I, Questions 44 to 49. You would benefit if you read Part I. Question 3, about the simplicity of God.

I hope this helps you to get it clear. You tell me, please.

Best regards
JuanFlorencio

 

[Linusthe2nd]

It didn’t endorse Rosmini, but it said those propositions were not heretical. And they said what I am saying. And John Paul II’s encyclical DID endorse him. Also, I didn’t say we were part of God’s nature. My philosophical explanation was that we are an accident of the light which surrounds Him, which is in turn an accident of Him. Also when you said God IS existence, are you not saying the world is part of Him then? Aquinas doesn’t say that. He says that God is His OWN existence. I haven’t seen where the Church has taught that position though

I like the proposition which said the Son and Holy Spirit were the same. Its like when Jesus said the husband and wife are “one flesh”. Two persons, but one as well

It made no judgments about those propositions whatsoever. They simply said that those propositions were not those of Rosmini but should be attributed to those who opposed him, but who had misstated his teachings And because those were not his opinions, they took his books off the Index.

So you cannot take those positions for the reason you stated. However, as I said, the last two definitely seem heretical. And one cannot accept the others either based on the reasons you gave. None of these were Rosmini’s opinions, and none of them were either approved or disapproved by the Church. The Church simply stated that these opinions were not Rosmini’s.

Linus2nd

 

[Partinobodycula]

Sorry that this response took me so long, I was a bit busy.

I don’t know if you realize it but you packed a tremendous amount of talking points into that paragraph, and for me to adequately respond to each of them would be prohibitive. So forgive me if I pick and choose among them. I do so only out of necessity and for the sake of brevity.

The whole point of the argument was to prove the existence of God as the un-moved mover,

This I maintain, is exactly what Aquinas failed to do. Mind you I’m not arguing that Aquinas didn’t prove the existence of an unmoved mover, I’m actually willing to grant you that point, simply for the sake of this discussion. I’m also willing to grant you any other arguments that Aquinas may have made concerning a first cause, or a necessary being. In fact I’ll grant you each and every one of Aquinas’ Five ways. What I won’t do however is concede that the Five Ways are consistent with each other, such that an unmoved mover and a creator can be shown to be one and the same.

If Aquinas is correct, and each of the Five Ways describes attributes of the same “God”, then they should be consistent with each other, and it should be possible to show how an unmoved mover and a creator can be one and the same. So far there have been two attempts to do so. One by Triflelfirt and one by Linusthe2nd. However the two are materially different. So it would appear that even informed Catholics have difficulty agreeing on how to reconcile the various attributes ascribed to God by Aquinas.

My basic question is, how can an unmoved mover, who can only move things from potency to actuality, and a creator, who contains no potency, be one and the same?

I had been hoping that Triflelfirt and Linusthe2nd would clarify their positions, but Triflefirt doesn’t appear to have been around in the last couple of days, and Linusthe2nd is understandably reluctant to do so. Perhaps tomorrow I’ll address my concerns about their arguments. In the meantime if you have any further objections just let me know.

And just so you’re aware, I accept the vast majority of the points that you made in your previous post. I would only ask that you summarize how you believe God created the world, and then we can discuss whether or not that’s consistent with Aquinas’ Five Ways.

 

[Partinobodycula]

I hope this helps you to get it clear. You tell me, please

JuanFlorencio, thank you for your response. Yes, I was aware of the many names and attributes ascribed to God, in fact, that’s part of the problem. People, even well educated people, sometimes ascribe to God attributes which aren’t consistent with each other. That’s my concern with Aquinas’ First Way, that it’s not consistent with the rest of Aquinas’ Five Ways, and with other Catholic dogma. Specifically, how can you describe an act of creation that doesn’t conflict with at least some of Aquinas’ own teachings?

If you believe that you can, than please do so.

Thanks

 

[JuanFlorencio]

JuanFlorencio, thank you for your response. Yes, I was aware of the many names and attributes ascribed to God, in fact, that’s part of the problem. People, even well educated people, sometimes ascribe to God attributes which aren’t consistent with each other. That’s my concern with Aquinas’ First Way, that it’s not consistent with the rest of Aquinas’ Five Ways, and with other Catholic dogma. Specifically, how can you describe an act of creation that doesn’t conflict with at least some of Aquinas’ own teachings?

If you believe that you can, than please do so.

Thanks

Yes, you are right. That is why some persons (St. Thomas himself) wrote their thoughts about the names given to God. It was a controverted topic. Why don’t you read again at least Part I Question 13 of the Summa, and comment on it?

Concerning the act of creation, St. Thomas only explains that it is not contradictory. He also says that the eternity of the universe cannot be demonstrated. For our reason, both the creation of the universe and its eternity are possibilities. Then he says that the creation is an article of faith.

I would like you could explain where exactly do you see the inconsistencies.

Best regards
JuanFlorencio

 

[Partinobodycula]

I would like you could explain where exactly do you see the inconsistencies.

Well it really depends upon how you choose to explain the act of creation. For instance Triflelfirt proposes that God simply caused actuality to arise from potency. But this is inconsistent because potency is an attribute of things. Things like you and me and angels. So how can we arise from something that can’t exist until we exist? It would mean that potency would have to have pre-existed the very thing that it’s an attribute of. So Triflelfirt’s explanation would seem to be inconsistent. Linusthe2nd overcomes this dilemma by proposing that God somehow willed matter into existence with all its accompanying potency. But this is inconsistent because it means that God created an attribute of which He is not the ultimate example, which is inconsistent with Aquinas’ Fourth Way. I.e. the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus. God is the cause of all matter, but God isn’t matter. That certainly appears to be inconsistent.

And yes I did notice that you tactfully avoided providing your own take on creation, which is a prudent debating tactic of course, although somewhat disappointing. It’s always better to attack the other persons position than to defend your own. But I’m up for the challenge, so feel free to point out the errors in my position. After all, the exchange of ideas is why we’re all here in the first place, right?

But at least someone is willing to engage, so thank you.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

Well it really depends upon how you choose to explain the act of creation. For instance Triflelfirt proposes that God simply caused actuality to arise from potency. But this is inconsistent because potency is an attribute of things. Things like you and me and angels. So how can we arise from something that can’t exist until we exist? It would mean that potency would have to have pre-existed the very thing that it’s an attribute of. So Triflelfirt’s explanation would seem to be inconsistent. Linusthe2nd overcomes this dilemma by proposing that God somehow willed matter into existence with all its accompanying potency. But this is inconsistent because it means that God created an attribute of which He is not the ultimate example, which is inconsistent with Aquinas’ Fourth Way. I.e. the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus. God is the cause of all matter, but God isn’t matter. That certainly appears to be inconsistent.

And yes I did notice that you tactfully avoided providing your own take on creation, which is a prudent debating tactic of course, although somewhat disappointing. It’s always better to attack the other persons position than to defend your own. But I’m up for the challenge, so feel free to point out the errors in my position. After all, the exchange of ideas is why we’re all here in the first place, right?

But at least someone is willing to engage, so thank you.

Dear Partinobodycula:

Am I able to explain creation? Of course not!

It was not really a matter of tact. There are certain things that are not possible to decide based on rational argumentation. Immanuel Kant presented in his Critique of Pure Reason some examples of other antinomies. Beginning with Descartes it was thought that human reason would be able to lead us to unity, provided we followed a strict methodology. There were so many trials to develop such method that the only conclusion that can be derived from that is that human reason produces diversity.

However, when we engage into a debate some rules should be followed to avoid excessive diversity. One of those rules is this: Go to the original sources. So, if you wish to discuss St. Thomas, go to his works. Linusthe2nd and Triflelfirt might know his doctrine very well, but I guess they will agree with me that it is much better if we go directly to the original works. Otherwise, you would not be discussing St. Thomas, but Linusthe2nd or Triflelfirt. Don’t you think?

I promised to add something to Triflelfirt’s insight. I will do it later.

Best regards!
JuanFlorencio

 

[benotagoat]

Linus
this

When God creates He does not pass from Potency to Act, Potency is a real capacity to become to the actual becomming eg. from childhood to adulthood, from not knowing to knowing. God is Pure Being, creation does not possess full being, it is always becoming. This passage from having a capacity to become to becoming constitutes change, time, motion in creation. Creation is always changing, moving toward attaining fullness of being.
That is the created state of our existence. We are being eternally held in existence by God even though we are finite in nature. Pure Being is God alone,unchanging, our being is becoming, dynamic, changing, it’s the condition of our nature. God by an Act of His will creates the universe and all that’s in it. There is no past, or future with God, only with us, He is Omnipresent. When you think of it, for us the past exists in our memories, the future exists in our imagination, and all we really have is the present which is constantly moving, changing, dynamic, second by second, in time. God is present in all of these changes, and causes them. He never changes. The concept of Divine Concurrence is used to explain how God goes along with our existence, sustains it in His providence, and how we exist in time and how He exists in eternity One has to be familiar with Ontology to understand these concepts and require serious study of metaphysics which most people do not have, so it involves a lot of explaining. Linusthesecond has given you some excellent references.

Thankyou, for a clear helpful explanation .

 

[Partinobodycula]

Dear Partinobodycula:

Am I able to explain creation? Of course not!

It was not really a matter of tact. There are certain things that are not possible to decide based on rational argumentation. Immanuel Kant presented in his Critique of Pure Reason some examples of other antinomies. Beginning with Descartes it was thought that human reason would be able to lead us to unity, provided we followed a strict methodology. There were so many trials to develop such method that the only conclusion that can be derived from that is that human reason produces diversity.

However, when we engage into a debate some rules should be followed to avoid excessive diversity. One of those rules is this: Go to the original sources. So, if you wish to discuss St. Thomas, go to his works. Linusthe2nd and Triflelfirt might know his doctrine very well, but I guess they will agree with me that it is much better if we go directly to the original works. Otherwise, you would not be discussing St. Thomas, but Linusthe2nd or Triflelfirt. Don’t you think?

I promised to add something to Triflelfirt’s insight. I will do it later.

Best regards!
JuanFlorencio

Don’t take this the wrong way, but you specifically asked me to point out what inconsistencies I saw, and so I did. But then you completely ignored them. I find that odd. Instead you would like me to refer to the original sources, and I’ll gladly do that, but at the moment I’m a bit busy and so I’ll have to return to the task at a later time. Until then I look forward to what you can add to Triflelfirt’s insight, but I can only hope that you’ll keep it simple enough for me and my ninth grade education to understand.

Til then

 

[ChainBreaker]

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.

I can imagine a moon made of cheese.

 

[ChainBreaker]

So Aquinas’ First Way simply argues for God as a manipulator of matter, but not as a creator of it.

That which is a mixture of potency and act is not identical to the act of existence; it is something that receives actuality in-order to exist. There is a distinction between the essence and esse in created things and this is made evident in the motion of things. Which means that any moving being is by definition dependent on the act of existence and is not identical to the act of existence.

 

[Bahman]

That which is a mixture of potency and act is not identical to the act of existence;

Where does the potency reside?

it is something that receives actuality in-order to exist. There is a distinction between the essence and esse in created things and this is made evident in the motion of things.

Essence is consciousness for any being and esse is its existence.

Which means that any moving being is by definition dependent on the act of existence and is not identical to the act of existence.

That is incorrect. Any moving being by definition depends on consciousness.

 

[ChainBreaker]

Where does the potency reside?.

Potency is not an actual being; Potency relates to what a thing is becoming or doing or the particular ends to which it is in act but has not yet actualised. Change is the actualization of a potential state that did not exist.

Essence is consciousness for any being and esse is its existence.

I am not familiar with your work. I prefer metaphysical definitions of being as presented by Aquinas. Essence is the “whatness” of a thing or the nature of it. Esse is the act or “isness” through which a particular essence can actually express it’s nature.

That is incorrect. Any moving being by definition depends on consciousness.

Well it depends on God’s mind, but God’s essence is identical with God’s esse. So it is correct metaphysically speaking to say that anything which is not identical with esse is dependent on esse in order to move or change. This is to say that change is the actualization of a particular natures potency.

 

[Bahman]

Potency is not an actual being; Potency relates to what a thing is becoming or doing or the particular ends to which it is in act but has not yet actualised. Change is the actualization of a potential state that did not exist.

How a being like rock could have a potentiality? How it knows about its end.

I am not familiar with your work. I prefer metaphysical definitions of being as presented by Aquinas. Essence is the “whatness” of a thing or the nature of it. Esse is the act or “isness” through which a particular essence can actually express it’s nature.

Whatness does not fully describe essence. It has to have the potential to experience and affect hence we can say “it is”, once it has a body then exist since it can experience and affect.

Well it depends on God’s mind, but God’s essence is identical with God’s esse. So it is correct metaphysically speaking to say that anything which is not identical with esse is dependent on esse in order to move or change. This is to say that change is the actualization of a particular natures potency.

Your essence is equal to your esse when you act, decide or judge consciously.

 

[ChainBreaker]

Your essence is equal to your esse when you act, decide or judge consciously.

My essence is not identical with my esse. If that were true i could not change or be in a state of becoming since i would be “pure act” without potency. I am not pure act.

 

[Bahman]

My essence is not identical with my esse. If that were true i could not change or be in a state of becoming since i would be “pure act” without potency. I am not pure act.

That is quite contrary true. You have to face with the result of your decision and judgment. You cannot possibly change yourself at the moment when decision or judgment is made. Potency by definition is the state before you make your judgment or decide.

 

[ChainBreaker]

That is quite contrary true. You have to face with the result of your decision and judgment. You cannot possibly change yourself at the moment when decision or judgment is made. Potency by definition is the state before you make your judgment or decide.

It is evident that I am never identical with existence because i change. I am actualized by existence and held in existence by existence.

 

[Bahman]

It is evident that I am never identical with existence because i change. I am actualized by existence and held in existence by existence.

That is not a correct statement. The correct statement is that you are not alway identical to your existence except the moment that you are conscious of your being, simply when you decide and judge on a situation.