The fault in Aquinas' First Way

[ynotzap]

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

God could never be His creation, for then creation would be God, (Pantheism) but God does cause things to exist with out imparting Himself to creation, He keeps things existing by His Omnipotence (all-power) God is not an attribute of everything He is the ultimate cause of the existence of everything. Creation is an act of God, and who can understand completely the act of God. He does impart some knowledge of Himself, but to understand Him or His acts completely is beyond human comprehension, we are not Omniscient.

 

[thinkandmull]

If God is existence itself, and we have existence as a property, we have God as a property. God to go, have a good night ynotzap!

 

[ynotzap]

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

HAVING BEING in not the same as saying you are God, God is Pure being, He imparts existence or being to contingent things that are contingent because they can be or not be. God can only Be, because existence is His nature, I can’t make it any clearer! You are having trouble in grasping and applying these concepts, and it’s exhausting trying to get them across to you, if you don’t have it, you can’t give it, and it would be unfair to you to expect it. Have a good night too.

 

[ChainBreaker]

If you assume existence is a thing unto itself, and this thing is likewise a Person, than everything in a way is God, right?

We have God. We are not God; our nature is not God.

To exist is like being embraced by God; for lack of a better analogy.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

If you assume existence is a thing unto itself, and this thing is likewise a Person, than everything in a way is God, right?

The conclusion of the First Way was that there was an Unmoved Mover, that was pure act; which is to say that the Unmoved Mover is pure existence, having no potency. And having no potency, this existence is Infinite and limitless.

With this conclusion it is easy to establish that everything that is composed of act and potency must also have an act of existence. That is, every essence that is not an Unmoved mover must have an act of existence. Now the act of existence which composed essences have are obviously similar to the act of existence of the Unmoved Mover, because existence is simply existence and no matter where it is it must be similar. However, the existence which composed essences have is limited because it is not the Infinite act of existence of the pure act of the Unmoved Mover.

We can also approach it like Thomas. He said we can conceive of an essence, for example Man or horse, etc. without knowing that this essence actually exists. Therefore existence must be an act which makes an essence be an actually existing substance. So some how existnence is separate from essence. Yet is essential if we are to have an actually existing substance. So, while not an actual part of a substance, it must be most intimate to it. We could almost call it an accident of substance, but Thomas rejected that. I think of it as an act pouring reality into essence until that essence is filled with it, causing it to be…

At this point we cannot conclude that the pure act of the Unmoved Mover is a Person. That cannot be proven, even in Thomistic philosophy. That is a matter of Divine Revelation.
But yes, once Revelation is known, the pure act of the Unmoved Mover becomes God. And of God we know that in God there are three persons. And since creation is of God, in some way every created substance reflects this Divine Trinity. And we use philosophical reasoning to reach this conclusion. But it is just a matter of speculation as to how this reflection plays out in each created substance. Thomas discusses this in S.T., part 1, ques 45, ans 7. It is quite deep. You can read it for yourself. Thomas also discusses this in his treatise on the Trinity in the S.T.

Pax
Linus2nd

 

[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

Dear Partinobodycula:

I am sorry for not writing my request clearly enough: I was not asking you about Triflelfirt’s or Linusthe2nd’s inconsistencies. If there is any, I would be unable to say anything about them. I was referring to the inconsistencies that you might be seeing in St. Thomas.

You ask me to keep my contribution simple enough, but I have to say that the matter is really complex. It has to do with many technical terms whose meaning evolved over the centuries. I have to advice you that most likely my exposition will be misleading -without any bad intention on my side-, because I will try to let you know in a very brief message something that has required many books. But… here I go:

Due to its length, I had to split the post in two. This is the first part.

Aristotle dedicates Book V of the Metaphysics to the description of the uses he will give to several of his technical terms. One of them is the term “potency”. As many others, “potency” has different meanings. Two of them are these:

I. ** **“it means the principle of a thing’s being moved or changed by some other thing as other. For by reason of that principle by which a patient undergoes some change we sometimes say that it has the potency of undergoing if it is possible for it to undergo any change at all. But sometimes we do not say this by reason of every change which a thing can undergo but only if the change is for the better.”

II. **** “And in another sense potency means the ability or power to do this particular thing well or according to intention.”

So, when St. Thomas referred to God as pure act, without any potency, this word acquired the first sense. And when he said that God has infinite potency, then the word acquired the second sense. In Question 25 (Part I) he says: “Power is twofold–namely, passive, which exists not at all in God; and active, which we must assign to Him in the highest degree.”

There was a concept about something that was called “prime matter” (Aristotle’s invention). Nobody claimed that it existed somewhere. It was just a concept. And it was identified with pure “potency” in the first sense. Any matter around us was conceived as an entity composed of “prime matter” and a “form”. This way, water and gold, for example, would be made up of the same “prime matter” “plus” a different “form”. Those two entities (gold and water) would be understood as two “essences” that could come or could be brought into “existence”. “Form” and “essence” are two words that were gradually differentiated. Plato discussed for a time that “reality” belonged to the realm of “ideas” or “forms”. According to him, everything around us should not be called “real”, but a mere “appearance” or an imperfect “participation” of the true “reality” of “forms”. Aristotle rejected this doctrine, and he said that “reality” is all what is around us, and that the entities that surround us are a composite of “form” (which our intellect can “abstract” and understand) and “prime matter” (which does not involve anything which can be understood). We can conceive one of those entities even if it does not exist (for example, if it existed once, and we knew it, but afterwards it was destroyed). That which we conceive as capable (“potency” in the first sense) of coming into “existence” is called an “essence”. That which you can interact with is already an “essence” that has come into “existence”. We say then that it is in “act”. So, while an “essence” has the “potency” (in the first sense) to exist, any of the entities that surround us has a degree of “potency” (in the second sense) to interact with others. To be in “act” is to have a degree of “potency” (in the second sense) to take something else from its “potency” to its “act”. A burning coal, for example, has the active potency to make another piece of coal burn. We are able to promote a variety of interactions among the objects that surround us putting them together in different ways. Our knowledge (the “forms” abstracted by our intellect) enables us to do so. Our intellect makes it possible for us to be in “act” in a very peculiar way (I hope you understand this).

Now, the “first way” has to do with “movement” understood as the transit from “potency” (first sense) to “act” as you can see in the following quote from the Summa:

“The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects…”

 

[JuanFlorencio]

This is the second part of the message:

For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.”

I can imagine that Linusthe2nd and Triflelfirt could have thought that this generality of the argument allows us to suppose that it includes the creation of the Universe. I have to disagree with such assumption. Both Aristotle and St. Thomas used to say that it is necessary to begin any investigation with what is more knowable to us in order to reach what is knowable in itself. Accordingly, in the “First way” St. Thomas clearly states that the “movement” that serves as the foundation for the argument is the one that is evident to our senses; but the transit from the non-existance of the essenses of all creatures to their existence is not evident to our senses.

However, as I said in my previous messages, the conclusion of the argument is entirely valid, for two reasons: a) because one of the names of God is “First mover”, and b) because St. Thomas did not pretend to demonstrate with it the existence of God as creator of the universe.

I would like to stress that the whole natural theology is for St. Thomas a negative theology, in the sense that even though we do know that God exists, we do not know His essence. We don’t know what He is. We just know what He is not. St. Thomas certainly concludes that in God “essence” and “existence” are the same thing, but given the fact that we know about God’s “existence” through rational discursivity and not by intuition, we don’t know His “essence”. So, once we know many of God’s names, it is still necessary for us to proceed discursively to show that all those names belong to the same Being. St. Thomas does it in Part I of his Summa. I advice you to read it (newadvent.org). You will find it enjoyable.

If you have any question or comment, please let me know.

Best regards
JuanFlorencio

 

[Partinobodycula]

JuanFlorencio, sorry for taking so long to respond, we had a bit of snow yesterday and I spent much of yesterday and this morning trying to dig out. Fortunately my nephew finally came over with a bobcat and finished plowing the driveway, or I would still be out there shoveling.

So anyway, to get back to the discussion. I must first complement you for taking the time, and having the patience, to try to explain things to me. It’s very appreciated. ynotzap has also provided a couple of very informative posts and they’re appreciated as well. However none of them have actually addressed the main issue that I’m having. Specifically the last line in each of Aquinas’ Five ways, basically they all state, “and this everyone understands to be God”. I have a problem with this assertion. Let me explain.

You’ll notice that in the upper right hand corner of my posts it says Christian Solipsist. Now whenever I mention this fact I have to explain to people that I’m NOT a hard solipsist, I’m a soft solipsist. There’s a big difference. A soft solipsist simply asserts that there’s no way for me to know if there’s an objective reality outside of my own mind, or not. I simply can’t know. It’s not an assertion about what’s true, only about what’s knowable. But being the inquisitive type, my ultimate goal is to find out, and that’s the actual purpose of this thread, to see if reason, and in particular Aquinas’ Five ways, can prove once and for all that I’m not the creator of the world around me. The task I’m afraid is most likely doomed.

You, perhaps unfortunately, have shown the patience and insight necessary for assisting me in this endeavor. I would like to make it clear that you can at any time withdraw from this discussion, as the task will most likely prove frustrating and unproductive.

So this is the question, if the world truly exists only in my mind, in what way do I not fulfill the arguments put forth in Aquinas’ Five Ways? Because honestly, I’m not what I would understand to be God, so prove that I’m not.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

JuanFlorencio, sorry for taking so long to respond, we had a bit of snow yesterday and I spent much of yesterday and this morning trying to dig out. Fortunately my nephew finally came over with a bobcat and finished plowing the driveway, or I would still be out there shoveling.

So anyway, to get back to the discussion. I must first complement you for taking the time, and having the patience, to try to explain things to me. It’s very appreciated. ynotzap has also provided a couple of very informative posts and they’re appreciated as well. However none of them have actually addressed the main issue that I’m having. Specifically the last line in each of Aquinas’ Five ways, basically they all state, “and this everyone understands to be God”. I have a problem with this assertion. Let me explain.

You’ll notice that in the upper right hand corner of my posts it says Christian Solipsist. Now whenever I mention this fact I have to explain to people that I’m NOT a hard solipsist, I’m a soft solipsist. There’s a big difference. A soft solipsist simply asserts that there’s no way for me to know if there’s an objective reality outside of my own mind, or not. I simply can’t know. It’s not an assertion about what’s true, only about what’s knowable. But being the inquisitive type, my ultimate goal is to find out, and that’s the actual purpose of this thread, to see if reason, and in particular Aquinas’ Five ways, can prove once and for all that I’m not the creator of the world around me. The task I’m afraid is most likely doomed.

You, perhaps unfortunately, have shown the patience and insight necessary for assisting me in this endeavor. I would like to make it clear that you can at any time withdraw from this discussion, as the task will most likely prove frustrating and unproductive.

So this is the question, if the world truly exists only in my mind, in what way do I not fulfill the arguments put forth in Aquinas’ Five Ways? Because honestly, I’m not what I would understand to be God, so prove that I’m not.

Dear Partinobodycula:

Strangely, I did not notice that you were presenting yourself as a solipsist. It is interesting. I could get some benefit from a discussion with you. To my knowledge, there has been no solipsist in the whole history of philosophy. Not even one! Descartes used to use doubt as the first stage in his method to reach truth incontrovertibly. You probably know the result: All what he said (except for the analytic geometry) was very controversial. So, he failed. But I think he had an exceptional intelligence.

So, Descartes used doubt very laboriously to get rid of prejudices; but in your case doubt happens to you, and you would like to get rid of it. It is very interesting. I really would like to know what goes on in your mind, provided you proceed logically.

You will need to provide me with much more material in order for me to know if you are God or not. You might be Him, I don’t know. For the moment it surprises me that you need a shovel to plow your driveway. I tend to think that your nephew mounted on his bobcat deserves the name of God more than you; not because of his power, but because of his mercy. How could you explain that?

Why don’t we see if the world exists only in your mind first? I will assume I am just an aspect of you; the part that makes the questions and from time to time helps you establish relations between your assertions. Would you like?

Just promise me that you will be rigorous. Ok?

Kind regards
JuanFlorencio

 

[Partinobodycula]

So, Descartes used doubt very laboriously to get rid of prejudices; but in your case doubt happens to you, and you would like to get rid of it.

I would tend to believe that you’re correct. I could argue that logic and reason came first, and that from these proceeded doubt, but I really don’t believe that that’s the case. Doubt, for whatever reason, came first, and then, as appears to be the case with most beliefs, rationalization followed. The key as you point out is rigor. Don’t allow preconceptions to cloud reason. I try very hard not to do that. As for desiring to get rid of the doubt, that’s not exactly true, in fact life might be quite mundane without it. I love a good puzzle, and the ultimate puzzle would seem to be, why is the world the way it is?

I really would like to know what goes on in your mind, provided you proceed logically.

Strangely enough, that’s the same question that I’m asking, what’s going on in your mind?

But beyond that, outside of the ordinary mundane things that must go on in everyone’s mind, is the overarching question, why is the world the way it is? Why is it filled with violence and cruelty and injustice? To be honest those may be the very things that make most people, including myself, seek answers beyond the obvious one, that the world is the way it is, because it just naturally evolved that way. There’s nothing particularly mysterious about it. Simple, everyday cause and effect. That I’m afraid is the most likely answer to the question. But it’s not the most fulfilling one.

So if that’s the most likely answer, why bother with solipsism? Because there’s still one nagging unresolved question, where did everything come from? That’s the truly difficult question, and that’s where both God and solipsism come in.

Now to be perfectly clear, soft solipsism doesn’t maintain that the world exists only in my mind, it merely accepts that as one of the possibilities. God is also a possibility. As is naturalism, the Matrix, and the Boltzmann brain. The quintessential position of a soft solipsist is, I don’t know. To a soft solipsist any other position is irrational, because it requires information that the egocentric mind simply cannot have.

But when exchanging ideas with a solipsist the inevitable question is, how can the world exist only in my mind? To answer that question will require another post, and a $2.50 deposit.

 

[CommonWeal]

Even a child understands that matter needs a maker, that something cannot come from nothing. This is not rocket science people.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I would tend to believe that you’re correct. I could argue that logic and reason came first, and that from these proceeded doubt, but I really don’t believe that that’s the case. Doubt, for whatever reason, came first, and then, as appears to be the case with most beliefs, rationalization followed. The key as you point out is rigor. Don’t allow preconceptions to cloud reason. I try very hard not to do that. As for desiring to get rid of the doubt, that’s not exactly true, in fact life might be quite mundane without it. I love a good puzzle, and the ultimate puzzle would seem to be, why is the world the way it is?

Strangely enough, that’s the same question that I’m asking, what’s going on in your mind?

But beyond that, outside of the ordinary mundane things that must go on in everyone’s mind, is the overarching question, why is the world the way it is? Why is it filled with violence and cruelty and injustice? To be honest those may be the very things that make most people, including myself, seek answers beyond the obvious one, that the world is the way it is, because it just naturally evolved that way. There’s nothing particularly mysterious about it. Simple, everyday cause and effect. That I’m afraid is the most likely answer to the question. But it’s not the most fulfilling one.

So if that’s the most likely answer, why bother with solipsism? Because there’s still one nagging unresolved question, where did everything come from? That’s the truly difficult question, and that’s where both God and solipsism come in.

Now to be perfectly clear, soft solipsism doesn’t maintain that the world exists only in my mind, it merely accepts that as one of the possibilities. God is also a possibility. As is naturalism, the Matrix, and the Boltzmann brain. The quintessential position of a soft solipsist is, I don’t know. To a soft solipsist any other position is irrational, because it requires information that the egocentric mind simply cannot have.

But when exchanging ideas with a solipsist the inevitable question is, how can the world exist only in my mind? To answer that question will require another post, and a $2.50 deposit.

How did you come by this idea that you were a solipsist? Did you have it from you childhood? Or did it come from reading a book or listening to someone else? Or perhaps you are just fooling, having a good joke?

My reaction to all this kind of thing is to tell people afflicted with it is to tell them to drop philosophy all together. Read the lives of the Saints, the Bible, and the Catechism. Take a break, let your mind clear. Get a hobby. Get your spiritual life in order.

Linus2nd

 

[ynotzap]

JuanFlorencio, sorry for taking so long to respond, we had a bit of snow yesterday and I spent much of yesterday and this morning trying to dig out. Fortunately my nephew finally came over with a bobcat and finished plowing the driveway, or I would still be out there shoveling.

So anyway, to get back to the discussion. I must first complement you for taking the time, and having the patience, to try to explain things to me. It’s very appreciated. ynotzap has also provided a couple of very informative posts and they’re appreciated as well. However none of them have actually addressed the main issue that I’m having. Specifically the last line in each of Aquinas’ Five ways, basically they all state, “and this everyone understands to be God”. I have a problem with this assertion. Let me explain.

You’ll notice that in the upper right hand corner of my posts it says Christian Solipsist. Now whenever I mention this fact I have to explain to people that I’m NOT a hard solipsist, I’m a soft solipsist. There’s a big difference. A soft solipsist simply asserts that there’s no way for me to know if there’s an objective reality outside of my own mind, or not. I simply can’t know. It’s not an assertion about what’s true, only about what’s knowable. But being the inquisitive type, my ultimate goal is to find out, and that’s the actual purpose of this thread, to see if reason, and in particular Aquinas’ Five ways, can prove once and for all that I’m not the creator of the world around me. The task I’m afraid is most likely doomed.

You, perhaps unfortunately, have shown the patience and insight necessary for assisting me in this endeavor. I would like to make it clear that you can at any time withdraw from this discussion, as the task will most likely prove frustrating and unproductive.

So this is the question, if the world truly exists only in my mind, in what way do I not fulfill the arguments put forth in Aquinas’ Five Ways? Because honestly, I’m not what I would understand to be God, so prove that I’m not.

I have to do some digging into what I understand from my past philosophy class. Knowledge comes to us through the senses, what we sense makes impressions on our brain (Thomas calls it “a blank tablet”, we might call it : a blank CD) upon which is written these sense impressions. From these sense impression which represent what we sense by contact with the world around us, outside of ourselves, our intelligence forms ideas, abstracts them from these impressions, this is the power of our intelligence, a power of our spiritual soul. So initially, we must have confidence that our senses are truly representing the outside world. Senses can not deceive, they only respond to stimuli. Now how we interpret what we sense can be false, such as illusions, halucinations, mirages, Now what we abstract barring false interpretation, we have a true mental image of what we sense ( a truly wonderful phenomenon) and a spirtual one because, the mental image of an abstraction is called thought, thoughts can not be sensed, only understood, a spiritual process, and they are real, if they weren’t ,logically, we wouldn’t have them

We would not have any knowledge if we did not have a confident reliance on our senses, and what they sense. This is called objective reality, not subjected to our own thoughts, but exist independently from our thoughts. As long as our thoughts have contact with this reality, then our thoughts are objective. To maintain contact with this objective reality we must now use the power of our reasoning to guarantee that what we think is true, for what is objective is true To this we must use right reasoning, a spiritual mental process. To guarantee this right reasoning we must use universal self-evident principles taken from our observation of objective reality, these self-evident principle have there source from God, principles such as " a thing can not be, and be at the same time, it is, or it isn’t (fact, or not) " the whole is greater than it’s parts", can’t give what we don’t have, etc. These principles are found operative in the world outside of our minds. By the guidance of these principles in our logic we can then acquire metaphysical truth, which is deeper than mathematical truth, because it is concerned with the ultimate causes, and effects in reality. It takes a lot of discipline, and study to acquire this knowledge.

The proof of God’s existence in one thing, His identity is another. The first can be gotten from right-reasoning based on objective reality. The second only from “Revelation” It’s good to keep in mind that we have creative imaginations from which we can make up fiction, but we can not have fiction without non-fiction from which we draw fiction. We have to be careful that we are thinking objectively and not injecting our own subjective thoughts into our search for truth. We theorize, and theory can contain a lot of erroneous subjective thinking which prevents us from reaching the truth, so it’s important to be as consistent as we can what we know to be objective. Solipsism is such a tendency to be subjective to our own thinking, and losing contact with objective reality. It appears too introspective, and self-centered, much time spent thinking, and not enough contact with the outside world. We are not angels, but a unique combination of matter and spirit, and to be wholly human we must consider both qualities of humanity.

 

[CommonWeal]

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

This is not an accurate reading. The First Way does not “explain] the presence of motion,” it takes it for granted as a reality. “It is certain,” says St. Thomas, “and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion.” To deny this simple truth is simply foolishness. It would be like telling your own mother that you don’t exist.

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.

Indeed, Aquinas never uses the word “creator,” but I think you are missing the point. The argument proves the existence of a necessary cause (i.e., a necessary creator).

To “cause” something to occur is to “create” the occurrence. This should come as no surprise to any one. If I punch you in the arm and your arm becomes bruised, I have caused/created your bruise.

It might be helpful if you substitute the words “unmoved mover” with “unmoved causer.”

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.

And that’s the genius of Aquinas. He was wise enough to know that metaphysics and the search for truth has nothing to do with what if, but what is.

 

[Partinobodycula]

How did you come by this idea that you were a solipsist? Did you have it from you childhood? Or did it come from reading a book or listening to someone else?

Thank you for talking to me Linusthe2nd. You may not like my ideology, but we can still have an open and honest discussion about our differences.

I’m not certain when or how the concept of solipsism first entered my thought processes. Certainly when I was young, in my teens or twenties, and long before I was even aware that there was such a thing as solipsism. Any recollections that I have now are vague at best though. But I do recall wondering if things actually existed when I wasn’t looking at them. Perhaps it’s an offshoot of, “if a tree falls in the forest and there’s no one around to hear it, does it make a sound?” I do tend to find such questions captivating. The seemingly obvious answer is that it does, but does it? Then of course quantum mechanics only added to the mystical nature of the unobserved. You mix all of these things together and you have a solipsist.

Read the lives of the Saints, the Bible, and the Catechism.

I have read a couple of books on the lives of the saints, but this was many years ago and I don’t recall them now. I have read the bible many, many times. I used to have a practice of trying to read through the New Testament once a month. But then again that was long ago and I can no longer recall it chapter and verse as I once could. As for the Catechism I’m completely unfamiliar with it, although I was raised a Catholic and attended a Catholic school until I was 12 years old.

Get a hobby.

I’ve always had hobbies, I can’t envision my life without a challenge of some sort. I love challenges. I love adversity. I love mysteries. I love life.

Get your spiritual life in order.

I do believe that my spiritual life is in order, but thank you for your concern. I’m completely at peace with myself and with God if there is one. I don’t fear judgment. What will be will be. I’m content that I’m where I was meant to be, and that’s all that I have ever tried to do. If you’re likewise content, then I’m happy for you. I only wish that you could similarly happy for me. Try. Try to be happy for me.

 

[Partinobodycula]

I have to do some digging into what I understand from my past philosophy class. Knowledge comes to us through the senses, what we sense makes impressions on our brain (Thomas calls it “a blank tablet”, we might call it : a blank CD) upon which is written these sense impressions. From these sense impression which represent what we sense by contact with the world around us, outside of ourselves, our intelligence forms ideas, abstracts them from these impressions, this is the power of our intelligence, a power of our spiritual soul. So initially, we must have confidence that our senses are truly representing the outside world. Senses can not deceive, they only respond to stimuli. Now how we interpret what we sense can be false, such as illusions, halucinations, mirages, Now what we abstract barring false interpretation, we have a true mental image of what we sense ( a truly wonderful phenomenon) and a spirtual one because, the mental image of an abstraction is called thought, thoughts can not be sensed, only understood, a spiritual process, and they are real, if they weren’t ,logically, we wouldn’t have them

We would not have any knowledge if we did not have a confident reliance on our senses, and what they sense. This is called objective reality, not subjected to our own thoughts, but exist independently from our thoughts. As long as our thoughts have contact with this reality, then our thoughts are objective. To maintain contact with this objective reality we must now use the power of our reasoning to guarantee that what we think is true, for what is objective is true To this we must use right reasoning, a spiritual mental process. To guarantee this right reasoning we must use universal self-evident principles taken from our observation of objective reality, these self-evident principle have there source from God, principles such as " a thing can not be, and be at the same time, it is, or it isn’t (fact, or not) " the whole is greater than it’s parts", can’t give what we don’t have, etc. These principles are found operative in the world outside of our minds. By the guidance of these principles in our logic we can then acquire metaphysical truth, which is deeper than mathematical truth, because it is concerned with the ultimate causes, and effects in reality. It takes a lot of discipline, and study to acquire this knowledge.

The proof of God’s existence in one thing, His identity is another. The first can be gotten from right-reasoning based on objective reality. The second only from “Revelation” It’s good to keep in mind that we have creative imaginations from which we can make up fiction, but we can not have fiction without non-fiction from which we draw fiction. We have to be careful that we are thinking objectively and not injecting our own subjective thoughts into our search for truth. We theorize, and theory can contain a lot of erroneous subjective thinking which prevents us from reaching the truth, so it’s important to be as consistent as we can what we know to be objective. Solipsism is such a tendency to be subjective to our own thinking, and losing contact with objective reality. It appears too introspective, and self-centered, much time spent thinking, and not enough contact with the outside world. We are not angels, but a unique combination of matter and spirit, and to be wholly human we must consider both qualities of humanity.

ynotzap, I don’t know how much thought and effort you put into that, but that was amazing. Clear, concise, and well reasoned. Unfortunately also ineffective. But I don’t want you to think that I regard it as useless or unimportant. Anytime someone can stop and put their thoughts down openly and honestly, I consider that to be an amazingly generous thing, and so I must thank you for the effort. Likewise I don’t want you to feel that you’ve somehow failed, for although you’ve failed to convince me of your point of view, you’ve convinced me of something far more important, your concern.

 

[Partinobodycula]

Even a child understands that matter needs a maker, that something cannot come from nothing. This is not rocket science people.

This is not an accurate reading. The First Way does not “explain] the presence of motion,” it takes it for granted as a reality. “It is certain,” says St. Thomas, “and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion.” To deny this simple truth is simply foolishness. It would be like telling your own mother that you don’t exist.

Indeed, Aquinas never uses the word “creator,” but I think you are missing the point. The argument proves the existence of a necessary cause (i.e., a necessary creator).

To “cause” something to occur is to “create” the occurrence. This should come as no surprise to any one. If I punch you in the arm and your arm becomes bruised, I have caused/created your bruise.

It might be helpful if you substitute the words “unmoved mover” with “unmoved causer.”

And that’s the genius of Aquinas. He was wise enough to know that metaphysics and the search for truth has nothing to do with what if, but what is.

Well I’m glad that you’ve gone from simply ridiculing my ideology to attempting to make a valid argument against the OP. I’ve earlier in this thread indicated that I accept each of Aquinas’ Five Ways as valid. What I question is his identification of God as the object of those proofs.

You’ve argued the validity and interpretation of Aquinas’ proofs, now show that they can’t apply to me.

 

[ynotzap]

ynotzap, I don’t know how much thought and effort you put into that, but that was amazing. Clear, concise, and well reasoned. Unfortunately also ineffective. But I don’t want you to think that I regard it as useless or unimportant. Anytime someone can stop and put their thoughts down openly and honestly, I consider that to be an amazingly generous thing, and so I must thank you for the effort. Likewise I don’t want you to feel that you’ve somehow failed, for although you’ve failed to convince me of your point of view, you’ve convinced me of something far more important, your concern.

I would not know what I know if it wasn’t for the Catholic Church, and it’ teachers who guided me. It is true life situations caused me to find meaning in life I had an identity crisis, as I was orphaned as a young boy Being serious more than most boys are at a young age, I was in a sense forced to do a lot of thinking. My desire to know life and the truth was answered by the Church. I led a life for the most part committed to my Faith convictions, but also coupled with my own observation of reality in the world. Later in life I received a great blessing after suffering a lot of failure, but still maintaining the Faith in spite of failure. I experienced abandonment, I can only attribute my endurance to the strength I received from God. Then a beautiful thing happened, I had several spiritual experiences that confirmed my Faith, and I say confirmed because it didn’t just involve me, but another. Now I don’t just believe in God’s existence but know that He exists, experientially. I can’t convince anyone, but I can certainly point the way to Jesus Christ, because an encounter with Him is beyond Philosophy and reason, even though they speak of HIs existence. We all have spiritual conditions that need healing and some only God reserves for Himself to heal to let us know He is our greatest need. He redeems us from all our problems.

 

[Bahman]

If you assume existence is a thing unto itself, and this thing is likewise a Person, than everything in a way is God, right?

 

[JuanFlorencio]

I would tend to believe that you’re correct. I could argue that logic and reason came first, and that from these proceeded doubt, but I really don’t believe that that’s the case. Doubt, for whatever reason, came first, and then, as appears to be the case with most beliefs, rationalization followed. The key as you point out is rigor. Don’t allow preconceptions to cloud reason. I try very hard not to do that. As for desiring to get rid of the doubt, that’s not exactly true, in fact life might be quite mundane without it. I love a good puzzle, and the ultimate puzzle would seem to be, why is the world the way it is?

What goes on in my mind? This: you are using doubt as your last refuge not to face life. It is the excuse that you are constantly offering to yourself because you know that you will surrender to it. Faith, and not doubt, is your greatest challenge. Doubt keeps you in the same grey place; no good puzzles in it at all. Faith will illuminate what is in front of you, and will provide good challenges to you. Even doubt will then become a challenge, but not yours. Faith, and not doubt.

God bless you.
JuanFlorencio