The First Way Explained

[Linusthe2nd]

If you say so.

A few comments using your numbers:

1. I think unless Thomas specifically retracted on celestial mechanics it would be against his intentions to remove it. Also I’ve previously been told (by another poster) that the ST version is too simplistic and is defeated by the principle of inertia (although it turned out the longer version is too).

A. It is perfectly legitimate to drop Celesial Mechanics from the argument. Thomas did it himself in the S.T. form of the argument.
B. In what way is the argument in the S.T. too simplistic. These judgments must be proven, not just reiterated, because some folks view everything about any of Thomas’ " proofs " as invalid.
C. The principle of the Law of Inertia has no adverse effect on the First Way

1. Firstly because we can just drop all consideration of it. The argument only has to be true in one instance and we have arrived at the Unmoved Mover, which is the only object of the argument. Once we have demonstrated the necessary existence of the Unmoved Mover, we have arrived at the existence of a being which can only be the Christian God.
   2. Secondly, there is no reason not to consider a propelled object having mass as being moved from the actual state of non-moving to a state of moving, which it possessed only potentially before being acted on by an incidental agent having the power to actualize this potential.
2. Thirdly, there is no reason not to imagine that the acting agent has not activated two potentialities in the object having mass. It set it in motion and, secondly, it activated the object’s nature of mass, which is to empower the object to continuous motion until acted upon by a superior opposing agent. And in this second actuation we may be bumping into the sustaining causality of the Unmoved Mover.

1. Yes it does, for Thomas says “Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another”. Also there’s no such thing as substance or essence, that’s part of the discredited physics.

A. Thomas does not exclude the kind of self-motion wherein one part of a being ( substance ) acts to activate another part from potentiality to actuality. He gives several examples. First that of one part of an animal being moved by another part. The legs of an animal move because because of the flexing of muscles, which flex because of the firing of certain motor neurons, etc. ( Aquinas by Ed Feser, pg 67 ). One can certainly say this of human thinking and willing which Thomas points out. Our thinking actuates the potential act of willing.

The same could be said of human activity in general or the activity of any living thing. One could even say it of the interior activity of all the elements on the periodic table. They are changing because of the interior activity of their natures. This is most notable in the atomic elements.

What Thomas was saying was true enough in his day, he certainly knew nothing of the natural degeneration of the various elements.

So one would have to make allowances for that type of change and just say that changes
caused by the spontaneous activity of inner nature of a thing instantiate the point where the Unmoved Mover is acting directly on the potential of a being. In other words we have arrived at the Unmoved Mover acting on nature, by sustaining, here and now, the spontaneous activity it bestowed upon these natures at creation or through evolution.

The kind of self movement it excludes is the kind where something like a lump of coal would change itself into a horse or a lump of gold.

B. Substance and essence have not been displaced by modern science ( except in your " humble " opinion ). If you are going to say that, you have to prove that it is so. It would be more proper to say that today we have broadened the application of substance and essence to include the meanings of what science discusses. But the use of the terms are still valid in philosophy and common usage. Aristotle and Thomas closely defined them. Science assumes their validity or science would be impossible.

And I better stop here for now.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

If you say so. …

4.Yes it is, it’s defeated by any form of relativity.

You will have to explain how. Considering my explanations I don’t see how.

Here is my defense of the First Way in this regard ( or at least part of it, since it assumes you have read all my comments here )

" This is important in handling the problem offered by modern physics. Dr. Magee says that Thomas mistates his premise that " …what is moved must be moved by another…" because " …some things change themselves through the exercise of intrinsic physical forces…" ( you can read all that he says by accessing the last link above ). He describes how these forces bring about physical change in both themselves and in everything else and that therefore changes are brought about by a means other that the activity of a continual, simultaneous external force as demanded by Thomas’ First Way and thus nullifies the First Way.

Phoo! Three things are going on here. We are dealing with three different realities. First we are dealing with what I have called " free floating " particles and other entities ( sometimes waves and sometimes particles) which Dr. Magee says are streaming out from the original " Big Bang " and which show that a chain of simultaneous, incidental agents is impossible because these " free floating " particles receed back in time. He makes two mistakes here which I may come back to later.

Secondly, we are dealing with many of these same particles ( though in the more compact form of four definitive forces, strong and weak, electromagnetic, and gravitational) of which the substances of our common everyday experience are formed.

Thirdly, we are dealing with substances of common everyday experience, in which we cannot see these forces operating.

What he does not tell us is that these substances, by which Aristotle, the great Muslim and Jewish Philosophers, and Thomas Aquinas ( and all philosophers into the 16th century ) identified as the realities of the universe, had natures. And these natures were created as integral components along with their acts of existence. These natures ( or forms ) contained certain forces and encoded instructions of operation, which allowed each substance to act in the manner determined proper to the type of substance it was. Thus a cow acted differently that a lump of gold, etc.

Now we cannot see these natures, nor even the substances, nor their acts of existence. We learn of their existence by observing the substances in operation. But with the advent of modern science we are able to " see " the physical entities ( particles, cells, molecusle, electrons, atoms, forces ) which comprise them. Aristotle, Thomas and the midieval philosophers would call these accidents, which inhere in the first substance ( as opposed to the second substance which we actually do see).

The important point is that these natures govern the activity of these interior physical entities so as to bring about the good of the whole substance. These entities, while having their own proper activities, are still governed by the natures in which they inhere. They are not free lance operators. It is the cow that chews the cud, not the molecules, atoms, cells, etc. of which it is constructed. So Dr. Magee fails to prove the First Way false here.

When an agent of our experience acts, it is its nature that is acting, not its atoms and molecules. And of course it is subject to gravity and electromagnatism, etc. But these forces do not determine the activities of a substance’s nature. On the contrary, they enable the nature to act. But they are not causes of its actvity, except in a very tangential way. So when Dr. Magee says these represent incidental agent causes which are time sensative he is absolutely wrong. They are not incidental agents in the chain of incidental agents simultaneously acting here and now to actuate a potential of some kind. They may be time sensative in a sense, but they are not incidental, per se, causes of a substance’s causality.

It simply does not matter that the physicality of a substance is part of the unfolding of evolutionary processes of the universe. These forces are not the agent causes of an effect occurring here and now.

A boulder is moved by stick, moved by arm, moved by a human will, moved by the Unmoved Mover. Period. Dr. Magee can talk about his forces until the cows come home, he has not dethroned the First Way.

And as I said in post 13, it is absolutely pointless to try determine the natures of the " free wheeling " entities and forces moving through the universe, for I suspect that we are witnesses to either the creative action of the Unmoved Mover or His activity as the primary agent, sustaining, organizing cause. Besides, the First Way only has to demonstrate one example of a change/motion demanding the existence of an Unmoved Mover to be effective.

And I better stop here for now.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

If you say so.

A few comments using your numbers:

1. I think unless Thomas specifically retracted on celestial mechanics it would be against his intentions to remove it. Also I’ve previously been told (by another poster) that the ST version is too simplistic and is defeated by the principle of inertia (although it turned out the longer version is too).
2. Yes it does, for Thomas says “Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another”. Also there’s no such thing as substance or essence, that’s part of the discredited physics.

4.Yes it is, it’s defeated by any form of relativity.

1. Except in all the ways that it is, see Magee.
2. Nope for Thomas says “But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover”
3. There’s no such thing as potency, that too was part of the discredited physics (although it’s a mystery how it ever got included as it’s only a play on words anyway).
4. Unfortunately the onus is wrong. It’s a bit like saying Father Christmas must be real if we can’t think of any other explanation for why a sackful of presents arrived at the bottom of our bed. To be falsifiable the onus needs to be reversed, as Darwin did in On The Origin: “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down”.
5. Not sure of the relevance.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

If you say so.

1. Except in all the ways that it is, see Magee.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Lesson 2, Revisiting Some Issues

One of the issues I want to stress is that the First Way has to be found valid in only one instance and we have demonstrated the existence of the Unmoved Mover.

For example, in this link, youtube.com/watch?v=Qmpw0_w27As , the author gives several examples, each of which concludes to the existence of the Unmoved Mover.

The first example is that of a man striking a match. In order to strike the match, moving it from a potential source of fire to actually being on fire, his hand is moved from potentially moving to actually moving by the flexing of his muscles, which are moved from potentially flexing to actually flexing by the firing of motor nurons, all of which are moved,also,by the united action of all the atomic and subatomic particles, etc. comprizing the physicality of his life forces, which in turn are being activated,at this moment,by a decision of his will, which is moved and controlled by his soul, all of which are actively sustained in their activities and existence ( Moved ) by the Unmoved Mover.

We have thus arrived at the Unmoved mover in one example and it isn’t necessary to go further. It is now only a matter of drawing out the significance of this. We will find that nothing in the universe escapes the Causality of the Unmoved Mover. And as the author points out, the Unmoved Mover is found to be pure act and therefore exists at the bottom ( or the top if you prefer ) of every chain of per se causes. But It is not a part of the chain itself but outside of it Since it is Pure Act, it cannot be an actual part of the chain of beings, which to be moved, must be moved from potentiality to actuality.

And Thomas Aquinas will show later that any being having principles of both potentiality and actuality are material beings.And since the Unmoved Mover is Pure Act, It is not a part of the universe of such beings.

It is important to understand why the Unmoved Mover is Pure Act. Being Unmoved, it has no potentiality, and since it exists ( it acts, so it exists ), it can only be Pure Act. And being Pure Act, It is absolutely Unique, One of a kind. And a Being of that kind has attributes which are found in the God of Christianity. And so we rightly call the Unmoved Mover God.

It should be pointed out also that in this example we have discovered exactly how the Unmoved Mover moves things. He moves them primarily by sustaining them in all the activities of their natures. He is active in every sub-atomic particle of their existence sustaing their matter, their natures, the activity and powers of their natures, and their act of existence in existence. I know, everyone imagined that the Unmoved Mover was out there pushing, shoving and dragging things along from one change and motion to another. No, that is not the case. He does it by sustaining their own proper activities and powers, which he has given them in the first place.

Linud2nd

 

[inocente]

A. It is perfectly legitimate to drop Celesial Mechanics from the argument. Thomas did it himself in the S.T. form of the argument.
B. In what way is the argument in the S.T. too simplistic. These judgments must be proven, not just reiterated, because some folks view everything about any of Thomas’ " proofs " as invalid.

Thomas’ intro to the ST says it is for beginners in theology, and I’ve been told by other posters that the argument presented there is, as it were, the edited highlights of the full argument, thus Thomas didn’t retract anything but just left out anything other than the bare bones.

One of the problems with talking to Thomists is you don’t all agree on wordings so it’s a bit like trying to get a firm grip on a jelly.

I would say it’s fine if you want to drop something that Thomas didn’t specifically retract, but it would not be scholarly to then call it his argument.

*C. The principle of the Law of Inertia has no adverse effect on the First Way

1. Firstly because we can just drop all consideration of it. The argument only has to be true in one instance and we have arrived at the Unmoved Mover, which is the only object of the argument. Once we have demonstrated the necessary existence of the Unmoved Mover, we have arrived at the existence of a being which can only be the Christian God.*

Your hero Feser wrote a paper trying (and failing) to reconcile the first way with inertia, so there’s at least him and me who think you can’t just conveniently drop it.

The first way requires absolute frames of reference but for some centuries now we’ve known they can’t exist.

1. Secondly, there is no reason not to consider a propelled object having mass as being moved from the actual state of non-moving to a state of moving, which it possessed only potentially before being acted on by an incidental agent having the power to actualize this potential.

But there is no state of non-moving, it would require an absolute frame of reference. Newton’s first law says a state of rest is fully equivalent to a state of uniform motion. Ergo the first way fails.

3. Thirdly, there is no reason not to imagine that the acting agent has not activated two potentialities in the object having mass. It set it in motion and, secondly, it activated the object’s nature of mass, which is to empower the object to continuous motion until acted upon by a superior opposing agent. And in this second actuation we may be bumping into the sustaining causality of the Unmoved Mover.

Newton put an end such complicated speculations.

There’s a good rule of thumb to always be suspicious of mechanisms which have no apparent purpose other than to save an argument. For fun, to see what I mean, have a look at the Flat Earth Society forum, where you’ll find some experts in concocting strange and complicated explanations to try to support their argument (I think maybe they just do it for sport).

A. Thomas does not exclude the kind of self-motion wherein one part of a being ( substance ) acts to activate another part from potentiality to actuality. He gives several examples. First that of one part of an animal being moved by another part. The legs of an animal move because because of the flexing of muscles, which flex because of the firing of certain motor neurons, etc. ( Aquinas by Ed Feser, pg 67 ). One can certainly say this of human thinking and willing which Thomas points out. Our thinking actuates the potential act of willing.

That isn’t what could be called self-motion though, it’s just one part of a system causing movement or change in another part, like pressing the gas pedal.

 

[inocente]

The same could be said of human activity in general or the activity of any living thing. One could even say it of the interior activity of all the elements on the periodic table. They are changing because of the interior activity of their natures. This is most notable in the atomic elements.

Que? A chemical’s “nature” results from its composition. The “nature” of iron does not cause iron to exist any more than the nature of the Empire State Building caused it to come into existence.

*What Thomas was saying was true enough in his day, he certainly knew nothing of the natural degeneration of the various elements.

So one would have to make allowances for that type of change and just say that changes
caused by the spontaneous activity of inner nature of a thing instantiate the point where the Unmoved Mover is acting directly on the potential of a being. In other words we have arrived at the Unmoved Mover acting on nature, by sustaining, here and now, the spontaneous activity it bestowed upon these natures at creation or through evolution.*

Normally we discard false statements, without thinking any less of the guy who made them. He didn’t know something we know, so his argument is wrong. Maggee and I say so what, we can move on without it.

The kind of self movement it excludes is the kind where something like a lump of coal would change itself into a horse or a lump of gold.

The laws of physics don’t rule out many such events, for instance all the shards of a broken glass could jump back together, all the molecules in your body could spontaneously jump one meter to the right. Just incredibly unlikely.

Coal → horse is less unlikely in absolute terms, as after waiting several million years it actually happened.

So if the argument rules out such events, that’s another thing that’s been disproved.

B. Substance and essence have not been displaced by modern science ( except in your " humble " opinion ). If you are going to say that, you have to prove that it is so. It would be more proper to say that today we have broadened the application of substance and essence to include the meanings of what science discusses. But the use of the terms are still valid in philosophy and common usage. Aristotle and Thomas closely defined them. Science assumes their validity or science would be impossible.

They have been well and truly displaced, none of our laws of nature talk of essences. There’s nothing in science which expects the prior existence of essence of iPad or of WD40, we know that particles can make up a whole bunch of stuff and nowhere does it demand essences.

And I better stop here for now.

Yikes you wrote a lot, I have to leave but as Arnie says, I’ll be back.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Que? A chemical’s “nature” results from its composition. The “nature” of iron does not cause iron to exist any more than the nature of the Empire State Building caused it to come into existence.

Normally we discard false statements, without thinking any less of the guy who made them. He didn’t know something we know, so his argument is wrong. Maggee and I say so what, we can move on without it.

The laws of physics don’t rule out many such events, for instance all the shards of a broken glass could jump back together, all the molecules in your body could spontaneously jump one meter to the right. Just incredibly unlikely.

Coal → horse is less unlikely in absolute terms, as after waiting several million years it actually happened.

So if the argument rules out such events, that’s another thing that’s been disproved.

They have been well and truly displaced, none of our laws of nature talk of essences. There’s nothing in science which expects the prior existence of essence of iPad or of WD40, we know that particles can make up a whole bunch of stuff and nowhere does it demand essences.

Yikes you wrote a lot, I have to leave but as Arnie says, I’ll be back.

You have to actually prove your assertions. Simly to say " no " or to simply say " science has disproved that " are not proofs, nor are they meaningful answers. I have explained the reasons for what I have said. You may reject them but you cannot pretend that you have disproven them.

Linus2nd

 

[inocente]

You have to actually prove your assertions. Simly to say " no " or to simply say " science has disproved that " are not proofs, nor are they meaningful answers. I have explained the reasons for what I have said. You may reject them but you cannot pretend that you have disproven them.

You wrote a lot and I didn’t get to your detail points yet. First one coming up.

 

[inocente]

You will have to explain how. Considering my explanations I don’t see how.

4.Yes it is, it’s defeated by any form of relativity.

The short answer is that all of the mechanisms in the argument have been discarded in modern physics. You’ll need to explain how this could be if they’re any good.

Newton’s relativity is well tested and holds that a state of rest is exactly the same as a state of uniform motion - we say a body as at rest if and only if we happen to have the same motion as the body. Thus there is no absolute state of rest, everything is always in motion. (We know also that all things are made from atoms, and the components of atoms are in constant motion.)

So the argument’s axioms that only some things are in motion and that things need to be put into motion, may seem evident to our senses but our senses are wrong.

First we are dealing with what I have called " free floating " particles and other entities ( sometimes waves and sometimes particles) which Dr. Magee says are streaming out from the original " Big Bang " and which show that a chain of simultaneous, incidental agents is impossible because these " free floating " particles receed back in time. He makes two mistakes here which I may come back to later.

Take one particle of cosmic microwave background radiation (apparently there are around 400 of them in every cubic centimeter of space). This is the earliest light in the universe, in motion through space for 13 billion years and during all that time its electromagnetic fields have oscillated billions of times each second in this elementary particle (i.e. no internal composition). So the argument’s “it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect” is falsified.

What he does not tell us is that these substances, by which Aristotle, the great Muslim and Jewish Philosophers, and Thomas Aquinas ( and all philosophers into the 16th century ) identified as the realities of the universe, had natures. And these natures were created as integral components along with their acts of existence. These natures ( or forms ) contained certain forces and encoded instructions of operation, which allowed each substance to act in the manner determined proper to the type of substance it was. Thus a cow acted differently that a lump of gold, etc.

Argument from authority, and not a good one as they also thought the elements are earth, wind, fire and water and everything orbited the Earth.

Now we cannot see these natures, nor even the substances, nor their acts of existence. We learn of their existence by observing the substances in operation. But with the advent of modern science we are able to " see " the physical entities ( particles, cells, molecusle, electrons, atoms, forces ) which comprise them. Aristotle, Thomas and the midieval philosophers would call these accidents, which inhere in the first substance ( as opposed to the second substance which we actually do see).

We cannot see these natures because they don’t exist. There is no preexisting form of iPhone or form of WD40, their “nature” is the result of putting components together in a particular pattern. Same with living things. Physics gives rise to chemistry, chemistry gives rise to biology. Not the other way round. The whole of science proves that, just walk into any university library.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Thomas’ intro to the ST says it is for beginners in theology, …thus Thomas didn’t retract anything but just left out anything other than the bare bones.

Yes, Thomas’ Five Ways in the S.T. were for beginners in Theology. It was assumed that they were quite proficient in all of Thomas’ prior works as well those of Aristotle, Plato, the Muslims and the Jews.

Thomas didn’t " edit " the First Way in the S.T. It is a stand alone argument. It does not rely on Celestial Mechanics. As I have pointed out in my arguments above, we reach the Unmoved Mover without them.

By the way, Thomas wasn’t all that sure of their validity anyway ( which I think you well know ). For he says ( S.T., Q 32, Art 1, ad 2 ), “…but as confirming an already established principle, by showing the congruity of its results, as in astrology the theory of eccentrics and epicycles is considered as established, because thereby the sensible appearances of the heavenly movements can be explained; not, however, as if this proof were sufficient, forasmuch as some other theory might explain them. In the first way, we can prove that God is one; and the like. In the second way…”. So we can see that he accepted such things only provisionally, not as established facts. And no where do his arguments depend upon them.

I would say it’s fine if you want to drop something that Thomas didn’t specifically retract, but it would not be scholarly to then call it his argument.

I guess that is a debateable point. However, the argument in the S.T. is stand alone, it arrives at the Unmoved Mover without any reference to Celestial Mechanics. I think it is legitimate. I noticed that Magee used the argument as presented in the S.C.G. and then jumped all over the argument as being no good. Yet, he neglected to give the argument as it appears in the S.T., which is the culmination of Thomas’ work and thinking. I would say that is a highly prejudiced view, the view of a man who had an ax to grind, not of one trying to establish the truth.

Your hero Feser wrote a paper trying (and failing) to reconcile the first way with inertia, so there’s at least him and me who think you can’t just conveniently drop it.

Yes, and that paper is on my " Favorites " list because I think it is especially fine. I think you are just being stubborn. If we can arrive at the Unmoved Mover without considering Inertial Motion or Aristotelian Motion, then I don’t see where we have erred. Perhaps you could explain to me why that would be wrong? As it says in Scripture, there are many houses in My Father’s Kingdom…" And one assumes many doors. If one door doesn’t work, we use the one that does. We are not, then, denying, that the First Way doesn’t work if motion is considered, we are saying that it doesn’t work for some people. In that case we select an example that is not dependent on motion.

And I have shown in the Lessons that it does work in at least two ways.

The first way requires absolute frames of reference but for some centuries now we’ve known they can’t exist.

That remark is not intellectually honest. First, the argument does not depend on motion from place to place. Secondly, your reference excludes my frame of reference, I don’t give a hang about any aspect of Reletivity or Quantum Mechanics when I am living my life here and I am talking to a sane person, here and now, about what is going on right in our own front yard. You only insist on grasping on to Celestial Mechanics because you have a deep and irrational repugnance for Thomistic Philosophy and an irrational devotion to scientism.

But there is no state of non-moving, it would require an absolute frame of reference. Newton’s first law says a state of rest is fully equivalent to a state of uniform motion. Ergo the first way fails.

Nonesense. That is the trouble with scientism, people addicted to it wind up in some sort of illusory world. My frame of reference is right here, I am here, you are here, that is the reality. We are not navigating through the galaxies. We are in this world, at this moment, that is the objective frame of reference. In this frame of reference, things are moving and things are at rest ( not moving ). And if things at rest are going to get moving, something has to move them!!!.

Newtons first law is mathematics, that was what Feser was pointing out. It is a scienific convenience, it is not and never was meant to refelect reality in the sense I am speaking of and in the sense Thomas was speaking of. The reality which leads us to God. **Ergo, the First Way does not fail **. It succeeds because it deals with the real world, not with mathematics.

Newton put an end such complicated speculations.

Horse feathers! Not in your wildest scientistic dreams.

There’s a good rule of thumb to always be suspicious of mechanisms which have no apparent purpose other than to save an argument. For fun, to see what I mean, have a look at the Flat Earth Society forum, where you’ll find some experts in concocting strange and complicated explanations to try to support their argument (I think maybe they just do it for sport).

Gee, why shouldn’t I be surprised? I think you and your friends devoted to scientism have concocted enough imaginary scenarios for us all.

That isn’t what could be called self-motion though, it’s just one part of a system causing movement or change in another part, like pressing the gas pedal.

I believe that is what I said. Some have regarded that as self-motion, that is why I mentioned it.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Re: The First Way Explained , Part 1 of reply to post # 26 by Inocent

---

Quote:
Originally Posted by Linusthe2nd
The same could be said of human activity in general or the activity of any living thing. One could even say it of the interior activity of all the elements on the periodic table. They are changing because of the interior activity of their natures. This is most notable in the atomic elements.( end quote from linus2nd)

Inocente
“Que? A chemical’s “nature” results from its composition. The “nature” of iron does not cause iron to exist any more than the nature of the Empire State Building caused it to come into existence.”

Linus2nd Answers

Just backwards. A chemical’s composition results from its nature. It’s nature is bestowed upon it by God, either at creation or by His primary causality through intermediate causes. And its existence is caused by God, either at creation or through His sustaining causality. This topic is covered generally in the S. T., Ques 103-109.

But for a few examples we have Q 103, Art 4, " I answer that, The effect of any action may be judged from its end; because it is by action that the attainment of the end is effected. Now the end of the government of the world is the essential good, to the participation and similarity of which all things tend. Consequently the effect of the government of the world may be taken in three ways.

First, on the part of the end itself; and in this way there is but one effect, that is, assimilation to the supreme good.

Secondly, the effect of the government of the world may be considered on the part of those things by means of which the creature is made like to God. Thus there are, in general, two effects of the government. For the creature is assimilated to God in two things; first, with regard to this, that God is good; and so the creature becomes like Him by being good; and secondly, with regard to this, that God is the cause of goodness in others; and so the creature becomes like God by moving others to be good. Wherefore there are two effects of government, the preservation of things in their goodness, and the moving of things to good.

Thirdly, we may consider in the individual the effects of the government of the world; and in this way they are without number. "

Or again, Q 103, Art 6 " I answer that, In government there are two things to be considered; the design of government, which is providence itself; and the execution of the design. As to the design of government, God governs all things immediately; whereas in its execution, He governs some things by means of others.

The reason of this is that as God is the very essence of goodness, so everything must be attributed to God in its highest degree of goodness. Now the highest degree of goodness in any practical order, design or knowledge (and such is the design of government) consists in knowing the individuals acted upon; as the best physician is not the one who can only give his attention to general principles, but who can consider the least details; and so on in other things. Therefore we must say that God has the design of the government of all things, even of the very least.

But since things which are governed should be brought to perfection by government, this government will be so much the better in the degree the things governed are brought to perfection. Now it is a greater perfection for a thing to be good in itself and also the cause of goodness in others, than only to be good in itself. Therefore God so governs things that He makes some of them to be causes of others in government; as a master, who not only imparts knowledge to his pupils, but gives also the faculty of teaching others. "

cont on next post, Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Re: The First Way Explained, Part 1 of response to post # 26 by Inocente

---

Quote:
Originally Posted by Linusthe2nd
The same could be said of human activity in general or the activity of any living thing. One could even say it of the interior activity of all the elements on the periodic table. They are changing because of the interior activity of their natures. This is most notable in the atomic elements.( end quote from linus2nd)

Inocente
“Que? A chemical’s “nature” results from its composition. The “nature” of iron does not cause iron to exist any more than the nature of the Empire State Building caused it to come into existence.”

Linus2nd Answers

Just backwards. A chemical’s composition results from its nature. It’s nature is bestowed upon it by God, either at creation or by His primary causality through intermediate causes. And its existence is caused by God, either at creation or through His sustaining causality. This topic is covered generally in the S. T., Ques 103-109.

But for a few examples we have Q 103, Art 4, " I answer that, The effect of any action may be judged from its end; because it is by action that the attainment of the end is effected. Now the end of the government of the world is the essential good, to the participation and similarity of which all things tend. Consequently the effect of the government of the world may be taken in three ways.

First, on the part of the end itself; and in this way there is but one effect, that is, assimilation to the supreme good.

Secondly, the effect of the government of the world may be considered on the part of those things by means of which the creature is made like to God. Thus there are, in general, two effects of the government. For the creature is assimilated to God in two things; first, with regard to this, that God is good; and so the creature becomes like Him by being good; and secondly, with regard to this, that God is the cause of goodness in others; and so the creature becomes like God by moving others to be good. Wherefore there are two effects of government, the preservation of things in their goodness, and the moving of things to good.

Thirdly, we may consider in the individual the effects of the government of the world; and in this way they are without number. "

Or again, Q 103, Art 6 " I answer that, In government there are two things to be considered; the design of government, which is providence itself; and the execution of the design. As to the design of government, God governs all things immediately; whereas in its execution, He governs some things by means of others.

The reason of this is that as God is the very essence of goodness, so everything must be attributed to God in its highest degree of goodness. Now the highest degree of goodness in any practical order, design or knowledge (and such is the design of government) consists in knowing the individuals acted upon; as the best physician is not the one who can only give his attention to general principles, but who can consider the least details; and so on in other things. Therefore we must say that God has the design of the government of all things, even of the very least.

But since things which are governed should be brought to perfection by government, this government will be so much the better in the degree the things governed are brought to perfection. Now it is a greater perfection for a thing to be good in itself and also the cause of goodness in others, than only to be good in itself. Therefore God so governs things that He makes some of them to be causes of others in government; as a master, who not only imparts knowledge to his pupils, but gives also the faculty of teaching others. "

To be cont. Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Part 2 of response to post 26 by Inocente

Or again, Q 104, Art. 1, " On the contrary, It is written (Hebrews 1:3): “Upholding all things by the word of His power.”

I answer that, Both reason and faith bind us to say that creatures are kept in being by God. To make this clear, we must consider that a thing is preserved by another in two ways.

First, indirectly, and accidentally; thus a person is said to preserve anything by removing the cause of its corruption, as a man may be said to preserve a child, whom he guards from falling into the fire. In this way God preserves some things, but not all, for there are some things of such a nature that nothing can corrupt them, so that it is not necessary to keep them from corruption.

Secondly, a thing is said to preserve another ‘per se’ and directly, namely, when what is preserved depends on the preserver in such a way that it cannot exist without it. In this manner all creatures need to be preserved by God. For the being of every creature depends on God, so that not for a moment could it subsist, but would fall into nothingness were it not kept in being by the operation of the Divine power, as Gregory says (Moral. xvi).

This is made clear as follows: Every effect depends on its cause, so far as it is its cause. But we must observe that an agent may be the cause of the “becoming” of its effect, but not directly of its “being.” This may be seen both in artificial and in natural beings: for the builder causes the house in its “becoming,” but he is not the direct cause of its “being.” For it is clear that the “being” of the house is a result of its form, which consists in the putting together and arrangement of the materials, and results from the natural qualities of certain things. Thus a cook dresses the food by applying the natural activity of fire; thus a builder constructs a house, by making use of cement, stones, and wood which are able to be put together in a certain order and to preserve it. Therefore the “being” of a house depends on the nature of these materials, just as its “becoming” depends on the action of the builder. The same principle applies to natural things. For if an agent is not the cause of a form as such, neither will it be directly the cause of “being” which results from that form; but it will be the cause of the effect, in its “becoming” only.

Now it is clear that of two things in the same species one cannot directly cause the other’s form as such, since it would then be the cause of its own form, which is essentially the same as the form of the other; but it can be the cause of this form for as much as it is in matter–in other words, it may be the cause that “this matter” receives “this form.” And this is to be the cause of “becoming,” as when man begets man, and fire causes fire. Thus whenever a natural effect is such that it has an aptitude to receive from its active cause an impression specifically the same as in that active cause, then the “becoming” of the effect, but not its “being,” depends on the agent.

Sometimes, however, the effect has not this aptitude to receive the impression of its cause, in the same way as it exists in the agent: as may be seen clearly in all agents which do not produce an effect of the same species as themselves: thus the heavenly bodies cause the generation of inferior bodies which differ from them in species. Such an agent can be the cause of a form as such, and not merely as existing in this matter, consequently it is not merely the cause of “becoming” but also the cause of “being.”

Therefore as the becoming of a thing cannot continue when that action of the agent ceases which causes the “becoming” of the effect: so neither can the “being” of a thing continue after that action of the agent has ceased, which is the cause of the effect not only in “becoming” but also in “being.” This is why hot water retains heat after the cessation of the fire’s action; while, on the contrary, the air does not continue to be lit up, even for a moment, when the sun ceases to act upon it, because water is a matter susceptive of the fire’s heat in the same way as it exists in the fire. Wherefore if it were to be reduced to the perfect form of fire, it would retain that form always; whereas if it has the form of fire imperfectly and inchoately, the heat will remain for a time only, by reason of the imperfect participation of the principle of heat. On the other hand, air is not of such a nature as to receive light in the same way as it exists in the sun, which is the principle of light. Therefore, since it has not root in the air, the light ceases with the action of the sun.

Now every creature may be compared to God, as the air is to the sun which enlightens it. For as the sun possesses light by its nature, and as the air is enlightened by sharing the sun’s nature; so God alone is Being in virtue of His own Essence, since His Essence is His existence; whereas every creature has being by participation, so that its essence is not its existence. Therefore, as Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. iv, 12): “If the ruling power of God were withdrawn from His creatures, their nature would at once cease, and all nature would collapse.” In the same work (Gen. ad lit. viii, 12) he says: “As the air becomes light by the presence of the sun, so is man enlightened by the presence of God, and in His absence returns at once to darkness.”

To be cont, Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Part 3 of response to post # 26 by Inocente

And from Scripture: Psalm 148 " Laudate Dominum de caelis. All creatures are invited to praise their Creator. Alleluia.

[1] Praise ye the Lord from the heavens: praise ye him in the high places. [2] Praise ye him, all his angels: praise ye him, all his hosts. [3] Praise ye him, O sun and moon: praise him, all ye stars and light. [4] Praise him, ye heavens of heavens: and let all the waters that are above the heavens [5] Praise the name of the Lord. For he spoke, and they were made: he commanded, and they were created.

[6] He hath established them for ever, and for ages of ages: he hath made a decree, and it shall not pass away. [7] Praise the Lord from the earth, ye dragons, and all ye deeps: [8] Fire, hail, snow, ice, stormy winds which fulfill his word: [9] Mountains and all hills, fruitful trees and all cedars: [10] Beasts and all cattle: serpents and feathered fowls:

Is God talking about electrons and atoms here or things which have a nature ? He has created them all, given all a specific identifiable nature which has a physicality guided and directed by that nature according to the powers created in it. I don’t see how any Christian, Muslim, or Jew could deny that.

Quote: ( Inocente )
What Thomas was saying was true enough in his day, he certainly knew nothing of the natural degeneration of the various elements.

Linus2nd Responds
" Of course not. But he and Aristotle knew enough to see that everything had a basic nature and a basic physical structure of some kind. Just because modern science has learned more about that basic physical structure is no justification for jettesing the natures of things or material, formal, efficient and final causality.

So one would have to make allowances for that type of change and just say that changes
caused by the spontaneous activity of inner nature of a thing instantiate the point where the Unmoved Mover is acting directly on the potential of a being. In other words we have arrived at the Unmoved Mover acting on nature, by sustaining, here and now, the spontaneous activity it bestowed upon these natures at creation or through evolution. "

Inocente Responds
" Normally we discard false statements, without thinking any less of the guy who made them. He didn’t know something we know, so his argument is wrong. Maggee and I say so what, we can move on without it. "

Linus2nd Responds

" There is no false statement. And I say we cannot move on without it, because you, Magee and others devoted to scientism are attempting to use it as a club to destroy Divine causality and the inner structure of His creation by heaping redicule on the only philosophy that can defend it. "

To be cong. Linus2nd.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Part 4 of response to post # 26 by Inocente

Quote: ( Linus2nd says: )
" The kind of self movement it excludes is the kind where something like a lump of coal would change itself into a horse or a lump of gold. "

Inocente Responds
" The laws of physics don’t rule out many such events, for instance all the shards of a broken glass could jump back together, all the molecules in your body could spontaneously jump one meter to the right. Just incredibly unlikely.
Coal → horse is less unlikely in absolute terms, as after waiting several million years it actually happened. "

Linus2nd Responds

You are still denying the basic nature of things, that is unforgiveable. Science does not
do that, but certain ideologues claiming some special access to special knowledge do. Show me a High School biology text or a text in Zoology that denies the basic natures of things. Show me a chemistry or physics text that denies that every substance behaves in ways indicative of a nature, rather than as a hodgepodge of random happenings. Such theories are not worthy of an intelligent, thinking person, though perfectly expected from ideologues.

You have disproved nothing yet. But your ideology is hanging out in the breeze.
deny that rules out such events, that’s another thing that’s been disproved.

Quote: Linus2nd
" B. Substance and essence have not been displaced by modern science ( except in your " humble " opinion ). If you are going to say that, you have to prove that it is so. It would be more proper to say that today we have broadened the application of substance and essence to include the meanings of what science discusses. But the use of the terms are still valid in philosophy and common usage. Aristotle and Thomas closely defined them. Science assumes their validity or science would be impossible. "

Inocente Responds
They have been well and truly displaced, none of our laws of nature talk of essences. There’s nothing in science which expects the prior existence of essence of iPad or of WD40, we know that particles can make up a whole bunch of stuff and nowhere does it demand essences. "

Linus2nd Responds

A nature is an essence, is a substance, is a being. There, that was easy. Science may not use the terms but philosophy does and has for about 3,000 years. I don’t understand your reference to " prior existence of iPad or WD40. Both exist of course and each can be understood to have a nature or essence or perhaps a mixture of natures, each of which can be resolved down to basic elements - which would have genuine essences or natures.

Why didn’t you try it with a horse or a man? A little harder to handle. I think if you think about it long enough you will find that what I have been talking about does not conflict with modern scienc at all. It is just that you want to use an incorrect interpretation of what modern science says and doesn’t say to push philosophy out the door. You have a natural repugnance for it for philosophy because you imagine it violates moden science. Why you have it is a mystery.

End of Response to post # 26 by Inocente
Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Re: The First Way Explained, Part 1 of response to post #29 by Inocente

---

Originally Posted by Linusthe2nd
You will have to explain how. Considering my explanations I don’t see how.
Quote:
Originally Posted by inocente
4.Yes it is, it’s defeated by any form of relativity.

Inocente is a little confused here. She is responding to #s 4 & 5 of my post # 18 which reads: " 4. The First Way is not adversely effected by Newton’s Law of Inertia.

1. The First Way is not adversely effected by any aspect of modern physics/science.
   To which she responded : "

Inocent says:
" 4.Yes it is, it’s defeated by any form of relativity. "

The short answer is that all of the mechanisms in the argument have been discarded in modern physics. You’ll need to explain how this could be if they’re any good. "

Linus2nd Answers
That is just your typical mantra, a mere assurtion. I can say the Moon is made of green cheese, I can say there is a man on Mars. Just a mere statement proves nothing. You have to prove exactly how " modern physics " disproves the First Way.

Newton’s relativity is well tested and holds that a state of rest is exactly the same as a state of uniform motion - we say a body as at rest if and only if we happen to have the same motion as the body. Thus there is no absolute state of rest, everything is always in motion. (We know also that all things are made from atoms, and the components of atoms are in constant motion.)

Linus2nd responds
" Newton’s Law of Inertia is a mathematical tool used to make it easier to handle the motions of things for scientific purposes. It is not meant to reflect a given state of affairs here and now in my immediate perspective. If I throw a rock that hits you in the head, then talk all you want about Newton’s Law of Inertia and I will just laugh at you while you are tending your wound.

There is a state of rest in my frame of reference and I just proved it. I picked up a rock, threw it, and it hit you in the head. I was the mover, the rock was the object moved. The rock had a potential to be moved or it would not have been moved ( a new state of actuality) and it would not have hit you in the head. When I threw the rock I activated the nature of an object having mass to be moved and to continue in motion until that motion was changed by an obstructing force, your head.

And your remark that the physicality of all things are made of ultimate particles in a state of constant motion, I agree with. So what, they comprise the physicality of objects, things, beings, essences, real substances, whose natures control and direct the over riding activities of the substances in which they exist. They act to preserve the identies and specific natures of these beings. Haven’t you ever heard of **genus, species, and difference by which we identify things.? ** I have explained all that in the Lessons above.

So the argument’s axioms that only some things are in motion and that things need to be put into motion, may seem evident to our senses but our senses are wrong.

On the contrary, I and Atistotle and Thomas are talking about every day things of our experience. The discussion about the interior physicality of the ultimate particles of these things has no bearing on the argument.

The activity of the ultimate particles is governed by the natures in which they exist and that is under the causality of the Prime Mover as well or God, if you will, who creates and sustains everything composing those natures, including the activities of the ultimate particles.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Linusthe2nd
First we are dealing with what I have called " free floating " particles and other entities ( sometimes waves and sometimes particles) which Dr. Magee says are streaming out from the original " Big Bang " and which show that a chain of simultaneous, incidental agents is impossible because these " free floating " particles receed back in time. He makes two mistakes here which I may come back to later. "

Take one particle of cosmic microwave background radiation (apparently there are around 400 of them in every cubic centimeter of space). This is the earliest light in the universe, in motion through space for 13 billion years and during all that time its electromagnetic fields have oscillated billions of times each second in this elementary particle (i.e. no internal composition). So the argument’s “it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect” is falsified.

I don’t know what this is supposed to be an objection to but it does not address my statement. Do you know all there is to know about background radiation, does anyone? Who can say what is actually going on all those billions of years before these energies ( or whatever ) congealed to form the things, beings, substances of our experience? I am pretty sure you don’t know. Perhaps we are watching ( or more properly surmising) God’s causality at work. But in a general way we know something is causing things to move out there, all the way back to the beginning. So you have disproved nothing.

To be Cont. Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Part 2 of response # 29 by Inocente

Linus2nd Says
" What he ( Magee ) does not tell us is that these substances, by which Aristotle, the great Muslim and Jewish Philosophers, and Thomas Aquinas ( and all philosophers into the 16th century ) identified as the realities of the universe, had natures. And these natures were created as integral components along with their acts of existence. These natures ( or forms ) contained certain forces and encoded instructions of operation, which allowed each substance to act in the manner determined proper to the type of substance it was. Thus a cow acted differently that a lump of gold, etc. "

Argument from authority, and not a good one as they also thought the elements are earth, wind, fire and water and everything orbited the Earth.

Well, there was a lot more to it than that, but you would have to read the sources and believe it or not some of the readers here probably have. But modern science has not given up on natures yet, nor that each nature behaves in specific ways which make them susceptible of study by science. All things we can identify have such natures.

Quote: ( Linus2nd )
" Now we cannot see these natures, nor even the substances, nor their acts of existence. We learn of their existence by observing the substances in operation. But with the advent of modern science we are able to " see " the physical entities ( particles, cells, molecusle, electrons, atoms, forces ) which comprise them. Aristotle, Thomas and the midieval philosophers would call these accidents, which inhere in the first substance ( as opposed to the second substance which we actually do see). "

We cannot see these natures because they don’t exist. There is no preexisting form of iPhone or form of WD40, their “nature” is the result of putting components together in a particular pattern. Same with living things. Physics gives rise to chemistry, chemistry gives rise to biology. Not the other way round. The whole of science proves that, just walk into any university library.

Linus2nd Answers
You are mixing apples and oranges. The artifects of man, if broken down in to their basic elements - gold, silver, lead, wood, etc - would display all the characteristics I have discussed. What we know as the natural elements, and living things all have identifiable natures . Your problem is that you don’t want to acknowledge that. You have a human nature, do you deny that. Do you think you are nothing but a collection of randamly moving particles? Do you deny you have a spiritual soul, an intellect, a will? Because, with all that you have been saying, you would have to deny these things.

Linus2nd

---

 

[inocente]

I guess that is a debateable point. However, the argument in the S.T. is stand alone, it arrives at the Unmoved Mover without any reference to Celestial Mechanics. I think it is legitimate. I noticed that Magee used the argument as presented in the S.C.G. and then jumped all over the argument as being no good. Yet, he neglected to give the argument as it appears in the S.T., which is the culmination of Thomas’ work and thinking. I would say that is a highly prejudiced view, the view of a man who had an ax to grind, not of one trying to establish the truth.

Nope, a reasonable conclusion is that Thomas relied on the (now discredited) physics prevalent in his day. Magee uses all of Thomas’ writing and cites other scholars to show that this is born out by further analysis. You’d need to make a similarly detailed analysis and cite scholars to support your theory that he is wrong when he says:

*"Furthermore, Professor Christopher Martin shows that Aquinas seeks to explain any given motion on earth through what Martin (following Peter Geach) calls a ‘lumping together’ of all the motions of the world. Aquinas treats every motion of the world as part of the motion of the whole world, and through this lumping together, the motion of the whole world, and therefore all of the motions within the world, depend on a single universal moving cause.

"Aquinas accepted the astronomical and cosmological model of the physical universe that was current in his day, i.e., the model which Aristotle adopted from Eudoxus and which he describes in Metaphysics XII, 8. 11 This geocentric model saw the earth as the motionless center of the physical universe with the celestial lights – the moon, sun, planets and stars – affixed to great transparent spheres which ceaselessly rotate around the earth in uniform circular motion. This complex scheme explained and predicted the apparent rising and setting of the sun and moon, the variable motion of the planets and the eternal cycle of the stars.

"With this model of the physical universe, Aquinas viewed the whole cosmos as a system of essentially subordinated causes being driven by the motion of the spheres. As he says in his Summa contra Gentiles , III, 82, “The heaven must be the cause of all the movement in the lower bodies”. He also cites Aristotle in claiming that “Man and the sun generate man.” In another proof for God’s existence paralleling the First Way he says, “Everything which moved is moved by another, for lower things are moved by higher ones, as elements are moved by heavenly bodies, and these lower ones are acted upon by the higher”. In the next chapter of the same work he says, “We see, for instance, that alterations and generating and corrupting which occur among lower things are explained by the heavenly body as by a first mover, which is not moved by this same kind of movement, as it is ungenerable, incorruptible and unalterable.” It is implicit in the First Way and explicit elsewhere in Aquinas’s writings, that the heavenly spheres are per se causes of motion of the whole world, causes which act simultaneously with the motions or changes they bring about. Thus, by lumping together all the motions of the world as constituting the motion of the whole world, Aquinas believes each motion is essentially subordinated to, and simultaneously caused by, the motion of the heavens. - aquinasonline.com/Topics/firstway-analysis.pdf*

 

[inocente]

Yes, and that paper is on my " Favorites " list because I think it is especially fine. I think you are just being stubborn. If we can arrive at the Unmoved Mover without considering Inertial Motion or Aristotelian Motion, then I don’t see where we have erred. Perhaps you could explain to me why that would be wrong? As it says in Scripture, there are many houses in My Father’s Kingdom…" And one assumes many doors. If one door doesn’t work, we use the one that does. We are not, then, denying, that the First Way doesn’t work if motion is considered, we are saying that it doesn’t work for some people. In that case we select an example that is not dependent on motion.

On the other thread I went into detail about exactly how and why Feser failed to reconcile the “principle of motion” with the principle of inertia.

There may well be many houses in the kingdom, but none of them are built on the sands of falsehood.

*That remark is not intellectually honest. First, the argument does not depend on motion from place to place. Secondly, your reference excludes my frame of reference, I don’t give a hang about any aspect of Reletivity or Quantum Mechanics when I am living my life here and I am talking to a sane person, here and now, about what is going on right in our own front yard. You only insist on grasping on to Celestial Mechanics because you have a deep and irrational repugnance for Thomistic Philosophy and an irrational devotion to scientism. *

Oh dear, got up on the wrong side of bed then? So according to you I must bow down before the alter of Thomas. But before I do, let’s hear what the Pope has to say: “The church has experienced times of brilliance, like that of Thomas Aquinas. But the church has lived also times of decline in its ability to think. For example, we must not confuse the genius of Thomas Aquinas with the age of decadent Thomist commentaries.”

So the Pope doesn’t agree with you there. I wonder what he has to say about modern science? “Even the other sciences and their development help the church in its growth in understanding.”

Hmmm. So I can either heed the Pope or I can heed you. Decisions, decisions.

Nonesense. That is the trouble with scientism, people addicted to it wind up in some sort of illusory world. My frame of reference is right here, I am here, you are here, that is the reality. We are not navigating through the galaxies. We are in this world, at this moment, that is the objective frame of reference. In this frame of reference, things are moving and things are at rest ( not moving ). And if things at rest are going to get moving, something has to move them!!!.

Methinks Thomas is glowing bright red at your subjectivism.

Also, you’ve not noticed the irony. Those addicted to the now discredited science of Thomas’ day are not, according to you, guilty of scientism, while those who don’t like falsehoods are. What strange logic, to call truth illusion and falsehood truth.

*Newtons first law is mathematics, that was what Feser was pointing out. It is a scienific convenience, it is not and never was meant to refelect reality in the sense I am speaking of and in the sense Thomas was speaking of. The reality which leads us to God. **Ergo, the First Way does not fail ***. It succeeds because it deals with the real world, not with mathematics.

I’ve seen people try to put science on the opposite side of the fence to religion, but never before have I seen anyone try to pit it against reality. You even did it using a device which could never have been made using your false science, in a world where the horrible killer smallpox would never have been eradicated by your false science, and where you may well have died as an infant with your false science.

One question: What’s the point of defending this argument when it necessitates virtually all atheists and theists hanging their heads and walking away? You don’t think it’s just a bit, well, self-indulgent, or to use the Pope’s term decadent?