The fault in Aquinas' First Way

  • Thread starter Thread starter Partinobodycula
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Bahman said:
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.
Click to expand...
I exist analogously in the sense that i have existence, but i am not identical in nature to the act of existence that i have at any moment or state my nature happens to be in.

My nature is not existence, if it was i would be timeless/eternal. I would not change. I would have the fullness of existence.
 
Partinobodycula said:
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.
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.
Click to expand...
Anything that is moved is moved by another. If it could move itself, it would be in Act, and not in potency and act change (motion) If we go from that which is moved to the mover, and continue until we come to the first mover we will need an unmoved mover to cause the first moved mover to move. For to move is to go from potency to act and in the same respect that which is in act can not be at once in potency, so to be the un-moved mover one has to be Pure Act, no potency. To move from potency to act involves change (motion) A thing moves from potency to act is to move towards more being. from the potential to become, to the actual becomming eg. from child to adult, from seed to fruit etc. Pure Act is God who is Pure Being. Underlying the five ways of argument to prove the existence of God (motion, order, necessity, grades of being, and origin) is the Cosmological argument: Everything has a cause, either there is a first cause or there is not. Cause and effect is founded upon contact with the world, which represents objective reality, it is founded on empirical truth eg. for every action there is a reaction.

Either there is a first cause or there is not. In movement there is cause, and if we regress from the last movement to the first movement. ( in effect ,to move from effect to cause until we reach the fist cause) The first moved mover can not move itself, neither can the first cause cause itself, both moved-mover, and the caused-cause need the Uncaused Cause.which we call God.

That which gives being to creation is the same as that which gives motion to things, for motion is a movement towards being As I stated already the truth is implicit in the argument from motion, that the first unmoved mover, and the uncaused cause are one and the same, Creator and God who gives existence to all things because He is the I am who Am
 
Again you insulted me. I can read and did read it. It said that if interpreted correctly they are NOT heretical. What about the proposition that we are the substance of the Word? As for God, do we not share being and existence with Him?
Linusthe2nd said:
Either you have trouble reading or you didn’t read my previous post. The condemnation was lifted because the 40 propositions were shown not to be those of Rosmini. The propositions were **not approved **but that Rosimini was not that source of them, so his books were taken off the Index.

" The motives for doctrinal and prudential concern and difficulty that determined the promulgation of the Decree Post obitum with the condemnation of the “40 Propositions” taken from the works of Anthony Rosmini can now be considered superseded. This is so because the meaning of the propositions, as understood and condemned by the Decree, does not belong to the authentic position of Rosmini, but to conclusions that may possibly have been drawn from the reading of his works. The questions of the plausibility of the Rosminian system, of its speculative consistency and of the philosophical and theological theories and hypotheses expressed in it remain entrusted to the theoretical debate. "

The Second Person is God and therefore has no accidents. Being God he is absolutely simple, he is pure spirit having no potentiality. I gave you proof that this is the Dogmatic teaching of the Church. And I it is the Dogmatic teaching of the Church that God and his creatures are totally separate in their natures, we are not accidents of God. That is heresy.
And the Holy Spirit and the Second Person ( the word ) are separate Persons. But each possesses the One Divine Nature.

" " THE VATICAN COUNCIL 1869-1870

Ecumenical XX (on Faith and the Church)

SESSION III (April 24, 1870)

Dogmatic Constitution concerning the Catholic Faith *

Chap. 1. God, Creator of All Things

1782 [The one, living, and true God and His distinction from all things.] * The holy, Catholic, Apostolic, Roman Church believes and confesses that there is one, true, living God, Creator and Lord of heaven and earth, omnipotent, eternal, immense, incomprehensible, infinite in and will, and in every perfection; who, although He is one, singular, altogether simple and unchangeable spiritual substance, must be proclaimed distinct in reality and essence from the world; most blessed in Himself and of Himself, and ineffably most high above all things which are or can be conceived outside Himself [can. 1-4].

1783 The act of creation in itself, and in opposition to modern errors, and the effect of creation] . This sole true God by His goodness and “omnipotent power,” not to increase His own beatitude, and not to add to, but to manifest His perfection by the blessings which He bestows on creatures, with most free volition, “immediately from the beginning of time fashioned each creature out of nothing, spiritual and corporeal, namely angelic and mundane; and then the human creation, common as it were, composed of both spirit and body” [Lateran Council IV, see n. 428; can. 2 and 5]

1784 [The result of creation] .But God protects and governs by His providence all things which He created, “reaching from end to end mightily and ordering all things sweetly” [cf. Wisd. 8:1]. For “all things are naked and open to His eyes” Heb. 4:13], even those which by the free action of creatures are in the future. "

onetruecatholicfaith.com/…±+1799&page=2

For a philosophical explanation of God’s presence in his creation see the following thread in Traditional Catholic Tradition, forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=942641

Linus2nd
Click to expand...
 
thinkandmull said:
Again you insulted me. I can read and did read it. It said that if interpreted correctly they are NOT heretical. What about the proposition that we are the substance of the Word? As for God, do we not share being and existence with Him?
Click to expand...
What is Linus doing now?! Of course he shares his existence with us. Where else does existence does from? What God doesn’t do is take parts from himself or give up parts of his existence. Instead we have actuality inside God.

Linus will never admit to anything that might appear to contradict his faith. Unfortunately he does not have a trained eye to see that sometimes things can merely appear contradictory and yet be perfectly consistent with his faith.
 
ChainBreaker said:
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.
Click to expand...
Becoming a different species?
 
ChainBreaker said:
I exist analogously in the sense that i have existence, but i am not identical in nature to the act of existence that i have at any moment or state my nature happens to be in.

My nature is not existence, if it was i would be timeless/eternal. I would not change. I would have the fullness of existence.
Click to expand...
Is it correct to say that God is existence Itself? Is that different from what I said? Saying God’s Light is His accident and we are an accident that that is just a manner of speaking
 
ynotzap said:
Anything that is moved is moved by another. If it could move itself, it would be in Act, and not in potency and act change (motion) If we go from that which is moved to the mover, and continue until we come to the first mover we will need an unmoved mover to cause the first moved mover to move. For to move is to go from potency to act and in the same respect that which is in act can not be at once in potency, so to be the un-moved mover one has to be Pure Act, no potency. To move from potency to act involves change (motion) A thing moves from potency to act is to move towards more being. from the potential to become, to the actual becomming eg. from child to adult, from seed to fruit etc. Pure Act is God who is Pure Being. Underlying the five ways of argument to prove the existence of God (motion, order, necessity, grades of being, and origin) is the Cosmological argument: Everything has a cause, either there is a first cause or there is not. Cause and effect is founded upon contact with the world, which represents objective reality, it is founded on empirical truth eg. for every action there is a reaction.

Either there is a first cause or there is not. In movement there is cause, and if we regress from the last movement to the first movement. ( in effect ,to move from effect to cause until we reach the fist cause) The first moved mover can not move itself, neither can the first cause cause itself, both moved-mover, and the caused-cause need the Uncaused Cause.which we call God.

That which gives being to creation is the same as that which gives motion to things, for motion is a movement towards being As I stated already the truth is implicit in the argument from motion, that the first unmoved mover, and the uncaused cause are one and the same, Creator and God who gives existence to all things because He is the I am who Am
Click to expand...
That argument falls apart if the world was eternal
 
I would LOVE to talk more to you if you are the greatest of them all! I love philosophy.

Argue against this: people are just what you see, that body, this. They are all SIMILAR, so we have the concept of a “human”. We change all time, but our basic biology does not change all that much. We still need blood, brain function, ect. We don’t have existence attached to prime matter with a form. You are a body, which is just saying you exist. As what? A body. They are not seperate things.

To be His own existence merely means that is uncreated, which means His is necessary. How would you prove that your body is not necessary? If it is not necessary, than it is not its own existence, which merely means it was created.

Appreciate any and all arguments…
 
thinkandmull said:
I would LOVE to talk more to you if you are the greatest of them all! I love philosophy.

Argue against this: people are just what you see, that body, this. They are all SIMILAR, so we have the concept of a “human”. We change all time, but our basic biology does not change all that much. We still need blood, brain function, ect. We don’t have existence attached to prime matter with a form. You are a body, which is just saying you exist. As what? A body. They are not seperate things.

To be His own existence merely means that is uncreated, which means His is necessary. How would you prove that your body is not necessary? If it is not necessary, than it is not its own existence, which merely means it was created.

Appreciate any and all arguments…
Click to expand...
Do you agree that nothingness (the absence of reality) cannot be a true object.
 
If you assume existence is a thing unto itself, and this thing is likewise a Person, than everything in a way is God, right?
 
thinkandmull said:
That argument falls apart if the world was eternal
Click to expand...
The world in not eternal it is finite, not infinite, but
God can hold it in existence eternally. The world was caused, and it didn’t cause itself. If it were eternal it would have existence always, no beginning and no end, and not subject to act and potency or change, it would be subsistent , no chance that the argument will fall apart. If there is error in the argument, it is my fault for not presenting the argument properly.
 
Two questions:
  1. why could there not be an eternity of motion and change, somethings going to rest, and others in motion, latter those is rest going into motion, ect. Potency, act. No need for a God, unless it can be proved that matter is not necessary
  2. God’s knowledge of the world is contingent, and His ideas are Himself; would you say that? Then His nature changed by what is contingent
 
thinkandmull said:
If you assume existence is a thing unto itself, and this thing is likewise a Person, than everything in a way is God, right?
Click to expand...
No it can not be, for existence is an attribute to existing entities, or things not their essence, essence and existence in things are to separate things ( a sign of being created) God is His essence, and His essence is Existence, ( I Am Who Am) We are because of He who is)
 
Then God is an attribute of everything, since you say He IS existence. Proving that existence is a property of any kind would prove there is a God but I think it is an unsurmountable task. I prefer to work with the Kalam cosmological argument
 
thinkandmull said:
Two questions:
  1. why could there not be an eternity of motion and change, somethings going to rest, and others in motion, latter those is rest going into motion, ect. Potency, act. No need for a God, unless it can be proved that matter is not necessary
  2. God’s knowledge of the world is contingent, and His ideas are Himself; would you say that? Then His nature changed by what is contingent
Click to expand...
l) Once God causes motion in something, from that point on He can sustain the motion eternally, change can take place in that we are always being moved toward being, we could never contain Pure Being for that would be to contain God. But we could spend an eternity being filled with being ( good)the Eternal Good, the Pure Being, Existence . For a creature whose nature has potency and act, the movement is constant towards the good, (being) Matter is the substance of the material world which can not give or sustain it’s existence without God who is it’s source. God is necessary for anything that exists, has being, otherwise it would be non-being, non-existent.
  1. Contingent means a thing can be or not be. God’s knowledge of the world is contained in His Omniscience (all knowing) and can’t not be. God is not affected by His creation, for He is apart from it, even though it (creation) has it’s being in God Created things can be and not be, God is Being.
 
  1. You didn’t provide any proof. Are you saying its just intuition. I can accept that, but its not definite for me
  2. I have being. Am I God? If God’s ideas are Himself, then the contingent changed His essense from all Eternity, for choosing to create the world was a chose of His part
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top