The fault in Aquinas' First Way

[Partinobodycula]

Indeed existence itself must be actualized for anything that begins to exist.

But if I’m not mistaken, actualization requires the movement of something from potency to actuality. But if potency is an attribute of “things”, and there were no “things” before God created “things”, then where did the potency come from?

 

[ynotzap]

But if I’m not mistaken, actualization requires the movement of something from potency to actuality. But if potency is an attribute of “things”, and there were no “things” before God created “things”, then where did the potency come from?

In created things you have the attributes of Potency ( a real capacity to become to the becoming, as in a child maturing into a man) An analogy would be like creating an empty bucket, having a real capacity to be filled, (potency) and then filling it (act), you are the mover (God is the Creator of the bucket, and the filler of the bucket(meaning created entities) God who is Pure Act. is also the Creator as explained in previous posts. In God there is no Potency (the capacity to be, He is Being (Existence) I say become to becoming when referring to created things because change, or motion is a condition(attribute) of our created reality. I don’t use the words (to be to being),in the act of creation these words are justified because they refer to God
We are contingent beings, when referring to entities that are constantly moving, created,we never will possess pure being for that is God’s nature, we are constantly moving towards being though, towards the good , being filled This is my view, and I think it is consistent with the teachings of St, Thomas. I also use the words, having a real capacity to become, in this sense God has created the potency in created things.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

In created things you have the attributes of Potency ( a real capacity to become to the becoming, as in a child maturing into a man) An analogy would be like creating an empty bucket, having a real capacity to be filled, (potency) and then filling it (act), you are the mover (God is the Creator of the bucket, and the filler of the bucket(meaning created entities) God who is Pure Act. is also the Creator as explained in previous posts. In God there is no Potency (the capacity to be, He is Being (Existence) I say become to becoming when referring to created things because change, or motion is a condition(attribute) of our created reality. I don’t use the words (to be to being),in the act of creation these words are justified because they refer to God
We are contingent beings, when referring to entities that are constantly moving, created,we never will possess pure being for that is God’s nature, we are constantly moving towards being though, towards the good , being filled This is my view, and I think it is consistent with the teachings of St, Thomas. I also use the words, having a real capacity to become, in this sense God has created the potency in created things.

Very good. Becoming quite a philosopher in your golden years. Hopefully some of it will rub off.

Linus2nd

 

[Partinobodycula]

In created things you have the attributes of Potency ( a real capacity to become to the becoming, as in a child maturing into a man) An analogy would be like creating an empty bucket, having a real capacity to be filled, (potency) and then filling it (act), you are the mover (God is the Creator of the bucket, and the filler of the bucket(meaning created entities) God who is Pure Act. is also the Creator as explained in previous posts. In God there is no Potency (the capacity to be, He is Being (Existence) I say become to becoming when referring to created things because change, or motion is a condition(attribute) of our created reality. I don’t use the words (to be to being),in the act of creation these words are justified because they refer to God
We are contingent beings, when referring to entities that are constantly moving, created,we never will possess pure being for that is God’s nature, we are constantly moving towards being though, towards the good , being filled This is my view, and I think it is consistent with the teachings of St, Thomas. I also use the words, having a real capacity to become, in this sense God has created the potency in created things.

Thank you for trying to explain, and perhaps I can use your analogy of the bucket to better illustrate the original question.

The Creator is He to which everyone gives the name God. He’s the First Cause as explained in Aquinas’ Second Way. He creates the bucket. Now obviously the bucket can’t be moved from potency to actuality until after it’s been created. Only after the bucket has been created by the First Cause, can the Unmoved Mover change it by means of moving it from potency to actuality.

So Aquinas is describing two distinct acts. In your analogy they would be the act of creating the bucket, and the act of filling the bucket. One act performed by the First Cause, the other by the Unmoved Mover. Aquinas refers to each of them as God, and so we’re to assume that they’re simply separate attributes of one God. But how does Aquinas justify this identification of both the First Cause and the Unmoved Mover as God, and specifically as one and the same God?

What is the reasoning behind the conclusion that the Unmoved Mover and the First Cause MUST be attributes of one and the same “God”?

 

[JuanFlorencio]

The codification of concepts

Dear Partinobodycula:

Concepts! Interesting.

However, there are so many words, and so many languages! Being you the only existing mind, you should have all the concepts that correspond to all those words. Do you have so many concepts? If you don’t have them, then there are more words than concepts. How would you explain it?

Kind regards
JuanFlorencio

 

[Partinobodycula]

Do you have so many concepts? If you don’t have them, then there are more words than concepts. How would you explain it?

One would expect there to be more words than concepts, and you’ve already explained why, Post #69

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.

 

[ynotzap]

Thank you for trying to explain, and perhaps I can use your analogy of the bucket to better illustrate the original question.

The Creator is He to which everyone gives the name God. He’s the First Cause as explained in Aquinas’ Second Way. He creates the bucket. Now obviously the bucket can’t be moved from potency to actuality until after it’s been created. Only after the bucket has been created by the First Cause, can the Unmoved Mover change it by means of moving it from potency to actuality.

So Aquinas is describing two distinct acts. In your analogy they would be the act of creating the bucket, and the act of filling the bucket. One act performed by the First Cause, the other by the Unmoved Mover. Aquinas refers to each of them as God, and so we’re to assume that they’re simply separate attributes of one God. But how does Aquinas justify this identification of both the First Cause and the Unmoved Mover as God, and specifically as one and the same God?

Answer:

I covered this point in Post 82 by stating that all of the five arguments (motion, order, necessity, grades of beings and origin) are based on the Cosmological argument, that all things have a cause, all of the five arguments have as their foundation the argument from cause and effect . That is, if you trace things from effect to cause, we will come to the first cause which can not explain itself, it can not cause itself, necessitating an Uncaused cause. If we regress infinitely from effect to cause,infinity is this case means indefinite regress we will have no beginning, or there can be no indefinite regress in causes. If there is no first uncaused cause there can be no second caused cause The truth that everything has a cause is proven from empirical knowledge found in the examples of “for every action there is a reaction” or If I drop something, gravity will cause it to fall, If I don’t eat I will die etc, etc. So all things have a cause, caused by the Uncaused Cause, creation, motion, necessity, being, and order. These five arguments are a small amount of the total amount of arguments, these are regarded as the classical ones that St.Thomas used

 

[JuanFlorencio]

One would expect there to be more words than concepts, and you’ve already explained why, Post #69

No. What I said does not explain why there would be more words than concepts. It would only explain why there are so many words. The concepts are in your mind, or they are a mode of your mind, or … I don’t know.

Being you the only existing mind, if the concepts are not in you, they do not exist. But the words are here and there. Please, try again: if language is the codification of concepts, and there are words for which you don’t have the concept, there are more words than concepts. How can it be?

Do you want to rectify your description of language? That is an option.

Kind regards
JuanFlorencio

 

[Linusthe2nd]

In order to protect the sanity of viewers who may have become confused by the " progress " of this thread I enclose below certain Dogmatic statements from the Council Vatican I which speak directly to the issues here. God Almighty created real substances, beings both material and spiritual, living and inanimate. In otherwords he created beings with real natures.

These beings according to Thomas Aquinas were created with natures which had potential principles and principles of act at the outset. In other words the fact that they could change indicated that they were not pure act, and not being pure act, they required a creator which was pure act. A being which had the power to bring them into existence and thereby " move " them to exist and to be moved.

THE VATICAN COUNCIL 1869-1870

Ecumenical XX (on Faith and the Church)

SESSION III (April 24, 1870)

Dogmatic Constitution concerning the Catholic Faith *

1781 But now, with the bishops of the whole world sitting and judging with us, gathered together in this Ecumenical Council by Our authority in the Holy Spirit, We, having relied on the Word of God, written and transmitted as We have received it, sacredly guarded and accurately explained by the Catholic Church, from this chair of PETER, in the sight of all, have determined to profess and to declare the salutary doctrine of Christ, after contrary errors have been proscribed and condemned by the power transmitted to Us by God.

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.

Linus2nd

---

 

[ynotzap]

The Cosmological argument is taken from objective reality, the material world, a reality existing outside of our minds. Our senses inform us of this reality, our minds abstract the concepts, natures, knowledge of these material realities. By right reasoning and remaining in contact with the knowledge of these realities we can advance in truth. A solipist who is inclined to be caught up in the concept that he can not be sure of the objective world is at a great disadvantage of finding the truth. For him the truth is self-centered, subjected to what he thinks. Truth comes from outside of our minds and enters in, not from our minds and enters out. We can create our own world, but it is a world of imagination, perhaps interspersed with some truth, or half-truths. An old saying " It’s O.K. to have one’s head in the clouds, as long as one’s feet are on the ground"

 

[ynotzap]

Very good. Becoming quite a philosopher in your golden years. Hopefully some of it will rub off.

Linus2nd

Thanks Linus 2nd, The reason they call them the golden years is because it takes gold to pay for the medicine

 

[Partinobodycula]

Do you want to rectify your description of language? That is an option.

No I definitely wouldn’t like to change my description of language, but if it’ll help you, I probably spent 30 minutes considering your post and deciding upon just those exact words. The codification of concepts.

Being you the only existing mind, if the concepts are not in you, they do not exist.

But the concepts are in me. Concepts are very simple things. They’re the building blocks with which the mind attempts to construct a representation of its environment. This is true whether the world exists only in my mind or not.

if language is the codification of concepts, and there are words for which you don’t have the concept,

There are no words for which I don’t have the concept. There are words for which I don’t have the meaning. There’s a difference. An unfamiliarity with one doesn’t constitute an unfamiliarity with the other.

there are more words than concepts.

And this is problematic because…?

If you’re looking for a specific answer you’re going to have to do a better job of leading me to it.

But keep trying. You never know where it’ll lead. I might actually learn something.

 

[Bahman]

In created things you have the attributes of Potency ( a real capacity to become to the becoming, as in a child maturing into a man) An analogy would be like creating an empty bucket, having a real capacity to be filled, (potency) and then filling it (act), you are the mover (God is the Creator of the bucket, and the filler of the bucket(meaning created entities) God who is Pure Act. is also the Creator as explained in previous posts. In God there is no Potency (the capacity to be, He is Being (Existence) I say become to becoming when referring to created things because change, or motion is a condition(attribute) of our created reality. I don’t use the words (to be to being),in the act of creation these words are justified because they refer to God
We are contingent beings, when referring to entities that are constantly moving, created,we never will possess pure being for that is God’s nature, we are constantly moving towards being though, towards the good , being filled This is my view, and I think it is consistent with the teachings of St, Thomas. I also use the words, having a real capacity to become, in this sense God has created the potency in created things.

Could you tell me where does freedom reside?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Thanks Linus 2nd, The reason they call them the golden years is because it takes gold to pay for the medicine

And that is the understatement of the day.

Linus2nd

 

[ynotzap]

Could you tell me where does freedom reside?

Freedom lies in the will of man, his choices. His freedom is a choice between God’s creation, creatures, or God Himself. Although God sustains the freedom of will even when it is against His will. Nothing escapes the providence of God, for He sustains creation, and without Him we can do nothing. Man can choose to do his own will, what he desires, or choose doing God’s will, which is what God ultimately desires for man, union with Him. B,ut many do not see it this way, they need enlightenment, ignorance is an affliction of humanity due to sin. God’s grace provides the enlightenment coupled with man’s ability to reason correctly and this is where those seeking the truth need guidance, and the Christian Catholic Church provides it. It may not define everything, but it will define what is needed for the salvation of man, the enlightenment, Jesus Christ and His Spirit of Truth.

 

[Bahman]

Freedom lies in the will of man, his choices. His freedom is a choice between God’s creation, creatures, or God Himself. Although God sustains the freedom of will even when it is against His will. Nothing escapes the providence of God, for He sustains creation, and without Him we can do nothing. Man can choose to do his own will, what he desires, or choose doing God’s will, which is what God ultimately desires for man, union with Him. B,ut many do not see it this way, they need enlightenment, ignorance is an affliction of humanity due to sin. God’s grace provides the enlightenment coupled with man’s ability to reason correctly and this is where those seeking the truth need guidance, and the Christian Catholic Church provides it. It may not define everything, but it will define what is needed for the salvation of man, the enlightenment, Jesus Christ and His Spirit of Truth.

Things move from potency to act as you stated and this applies to every beings. So again where does freedom reside?

 

[ChainBreaker]

Indeed existence itself must be actualized for anything that begins to exist.

What do mean by the actualisation of “existence”?

 

[Partinobodycula]

I covered this point in Post 82 by stating that all of the five arguments (motion, order, necessity, grades of beings and origin) are based on the Cosmological argument, that all things have a cause, all of the five arguments have as their foundation the argument from cause and effect . That is, if you trace things from effect to cause, we will come to the first cause which can not explain itself, it can not cause itself, necessitating an Uncaused cause. If we regress infinitely from effect to cause,infinity is this case means indefinite regress we will have no beginning, or there can be no indefinite regress in causes. If there is no first uncaused cause there can be no second caused cause The truth that everything has a cause is proven from empirical knowledge found in the examples of “for every action there is a reaction” or If I drop something, gravity will cause it to fall, If I don’t eat I will die etc, etc. So all things have a cause, caused by the Uncaused Cause, creation, motion, necessity, being, and order. These five arguments are a small amount of the total amount of arguments, these are regarded as the classical ones that St.Thomas used

ynotzap, I appreciate your efforts, but we’re beginning to talk around each other. I completely assent to Aquinas’ Second Way, and the argument for a First Cause. There must be something which created all the matter in the universe, if indeed there is matter in the universe. I also assent to Aquinas’ First Way, that there must be an Unmoved Mover. What I object to is Aquinas’ identification of these two as being necessarily one and the same. He provides no logical reason as to why this MUST be the case. It could simply be that something caused matter to exist, and something else caused it to move. It would then be the case of having to decide which of the two was actually God.

What I’m looking for isn’t a rehashing of the arguments for the First and Second Ways. As I say I assent to those. Instead what I’m looking for is an argument for why those two Ways MUST point to only one God. The only possible solution that I can think of is that movement/change is a necessary attribute of “matter”. If that were true then the First Cause and the Unmoved Mover would of necessity be one and the same. But that would lead to the conclusion that absent movement, nothing actually exists at all. Everything that you see around you is merely potency actualized. Which may sound like it agrees with Aquinas, and in fact does, but implies that we’re no more material than God is. God is Pure Act. He’s immaterial. We’re act combined with potency. But potency isn’t material either. So we’re a combination of two immaterial things. Logic would therefore conclude, that we’re immaterial.

Thus the ultimate conclusion of Aquinas’ Five Ways is that reality is merely an illusion. There’s nothing material about it at all.

So far NO ONE has ventured an argument against this conclusion, much less attempted to defend that argument. Which is disappointing, and would lead to the conclusion that they simply don’t have a rebuttal to the argument, other than a dogmatic one.

If anyone believes that my logic is faulty, please show me where. Otherwise you’re simply giving it your tacit approval.

But ynotzap, I do thank you for trying.

 

[Bahman]

ynotzap, I appreciate your efforts, but we’re beginning to talk around each other. I completely assent to Aquinas’ Second Way, and the argument for a First Cause. There must be something which created all the matter in the universe, if indeed there is matter in the universe. I also assent to Aquinas’ First Way, that there must be an Unmoved Mover. What I object to is Aquinas’ identification of these two as being necessarily one and the same. He provides no logical reason as to why this MUST be the case. It could simply be that something caused matter to exist, and something else caused it to move. It would then be the case of having to decide which of the two was actually God.

What I’m looking for isn’t a rehashing of the arguments for the First and Second Ways. As I say I assent to those. Instead what I’m looking for is an argument for why those two Ways MUST point to only one God. The only possible solution that I can think of is that movement/change is a necessary attribute of “matter”. If that were true then the First Cause and the Unmoved Mover would of necessity be one and the same. But that would lead to the conclusion that absent movement, nothing actually exists at all. Everything that you see around you is merely potency actualized. Which may sound like it agrees with Aquinas, and in fact does, but implies that we’re no more material than God is. God is Pure Act. He’s immaterial. We’re act combined with potency. But potency isn’t material either. So we’re a combination of two immaterial things. Logic would therefore conclude, that we’re immaterial.

Thus the ultimate conclusion of Aquinas’ Five Ways is that reality is merely an illusion. There’s nothing material about it at all.

So far NO ONE has ventured an argument against this conclusion, much less attempted to defend that argument. Which is disappointing, and would lead to the conclusion that they simply don’t have a rebuttal to the argument, other than a dogmatic one.

If anyone believes that my logic is faulty, please show me where. Otherwise you’re simply giving it your tacit approval.

But ynotzap, I do thank you for trying.

You need to define what you mean with spiritual? What is it? I consider it to be consciousness with the ability to experience and affect. Otherwise I agree with the rest of your post. Keep it up.

 

[Partinobodycula]

You need to define what you mean with spiritual? What is it? I consider it to be consciousness with the ability to experience and affect. Otherwise I agree with the rest of your post. Keep it up.

You’ll have to forgive me, I specifically avoided the use of the word spiritual in this thread, because the word itself comes with its own slew of baggage. To be honest I really don’t have a satisfactory definition of spiritual. So many people give it so many connotations and mine would probably be no more accurate than theirs. The term lends itself to being very subjective.

Otherwise, it’s good to see that at least someone sees some merit in what I say. But trust me, there are going to be times when we completely disagree. But I’m cool with that, and if you are too then we’re fine. In fact I’m fine either way. We gotta disagree on some things right?

We ain’t zombies. Wait a minute…