Thomas Aquinas' The Third Way to prove God's existence

[Linusthe2nd]

The third way is taken from possibility and necessity, and runs thus. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible to be and not to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which is possible not to be at some time is not. Therefore, if everything is possible not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence. Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence — which is absurd. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has been already proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God.

Joe Heschmeyer, a seminarian of the Archdiocease of Kansas City Kansas gives a nice explanation of this argument in Strange Notions. Since this article is copyrighted I will just link to the argument, but it is a very good explanation and worth reading.
strangenotions.com/how-to-perfectly-know-the-existence-of-god/

Pax
Linus2nd

 

[Partinobodycula]

…if everything is possible not to be

Herein lies the problem, for as far as we know, it’s impossible for matter/energy “not to be”. Therefore matter/energy would appear to fit the definition of a “necessary being”, as something which is incapable of being either created or destroyed.

Until such time as you can demonstrate the ability to create or destroy matter/energy we must assume that we’ve already found Aquinas’ necessary being. I would hesitate to describe it as God though, although you certainly can if you want to.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Herein lies the problem, for as far as we know, it’s impossible for matter/energy “not to be”. Therefore matter/energy would appear to fit the definition of a “necessary being”, as something which is incapable of being either created or destroyed.

Until such time as you can demonstrate the ability to create or destroy matter/energy we must assume that we’ve already found Aquinas’ necessary being. I would hesitate to describe it as God though, although you certainly can if you want to.

If you are not sure you exist or that I exist or that anything outside your own mind exists, then your question is pointless.

But as far as realists or moderate realists are concerned even matter is an effect, is composed of matter and form. And since anything composed cannot cause itself to exist there must be a cause of its existence. Ultimately this cause is pure existence which has no cause, it is God.

Linus2nd

 

[CrossofChrist]

Herein lies the problem, for as far as we know, it’s impossible for matter/energy “not to be”. Therefore matter/energy would appear to fit the definition of a “necessary being”, as something which is incapable of being either created or destroyed.

Until such time as you can demonstrate the ability to create or destroy matter/energy we must assume that we’ve already found Aquinas’ necessary being. I would hesitate to describe it as God though, although you certainly can if you want to.

That misses the point. Or are you saying that matter=form?

 

[Partinobodycula]

If you are not sure you exist or that I exist or that anything outside your own mind exists, then your question is pointless.

My personal philosophy has no bearing on the legitimacy of the question. I do believe that I raised a valid point.

But as far as realists or moderate realists are concerned even matter is an effect, is composed of matter and form. And since anything composed cannot cause itself to exist there must be a cause of its existence. Ultimately this cause is pure existence which has no cause, it is God.

No, you and everything you see around you is the form, matter/energy is the fundamental building block of this form. It can neither be created nor destroyed. It fits perfectly into Aquinas’ definition of a necessary being.

But following your line of reasoning, it’s God who must be an effect.

Any conscious being, take yourself as an example, must look at themselves and wonder, where did I come from? Perhaps I’m simply the result of electrochemical impulses in a biological brain, or perhaps I’m the result of a physical/spiritual duality, or perhaps I’m the product of something else entirely. But consciousness must arise from something, it can’t be fundamental, it must have an underlying structure from which to emerge. Just as you look at yourself and wonder where you came from, God, if He exists, must also look at Himself and wonder where He came from. There must be a fundamental structure underpinning consciousness, even God’s. This means that the necessary being can’t be conscious, for consciousness must arise from something. Ultimately, consciousness must always ponder the question of where it came from.

Thus the necessary being can’t be conscious, but must instead be a non-conscious entity like matter/energy. Therefore God must be an effect and the most likely candidate for Aquinas’ necessary being is matter/energy.

 

[Bahman]

My personal philosophy has no bearing on the legitimacy of the question. I do believe that I raised a valid point.

No, you and everything you see around you is the form, matter/energy is the fundamental building block of this form. It can neither be created nor destroyed. It fits perfectly into Aquinas’ definition of a necessary being.

But following your line of reasoning, it’s God who must be an effect.

Any conscious being, take yourself as an example, must look at themselves and wonder, where did I come from? Perhaps I’m simply the result of electrochemical impulses in a biological brain, or perhaps I’m the result of a physical/spiritual duality, or perhaps I’m the product of something else entirely. But consciousness must arise from something, it can’t be fundamental, it must have an underlying structure from which to emerge. Just as you look at yourself and wonder where you came from, God, if He exists, must also look at Himself and wonder where He came from. There must be a fundamental structure underpinning consciousness, even God’s. This means that the necessary being can’t be conscious, for consciousness must arise from something. Ultimately, consciousness must always ponder the question of where it came from.

Thus the necessary being can’t be conscious, but must instead be a non-conscious entity like matter/energy. Therefore God must be an effect and the most likely candidate for Aquinas’ necessary being is matter/energy.

Consciousness is in fact primary. To see how, you have to question whether you can make a conscious decision or not. If yes then consciousness is primary and nothing can cause it otherwise we are dealing with epiphenomalism and consciousness is not a necessary being. Moreover, what we call form/matter can be created otherwise no change is possible. The proof is very simple. Assume a system in given state/form S. Now assume that S causes another state/form S’. S and S’ cannot coexist hence S must be annihilated and then S’ to be created. But S’ cannot be created after annihilation of S sine the knowledge of state/form S is gone upon its annihilation unless consciousness of state of S exists.

 

[Winterwolf00]

If you are not sure you exist or that I exist or that anything outside your own mind exists, then your question is pointless.

But as far as realists or moderate realists are concerned even matter is an effect, is composed of matter and form. And since anything composed cannot cause itself to exist there must be a cause of its existence. Ultimately this cause is pure existence which has no cause, it is God.

Linus2nd

So basically what you are saying is this:
“Everything needs a cause, except God who doesn’t because I say so.”

 

[Linusthe2nd]

So basically what you are saying is this:
“Everything needs a cause, except God who doesn’t because I say so.”

I did not say that. Everything in our experience is composed of matter and form as evidenced by the fact that things are constantly changing. There is never a case where only matter exists, not even in the nano world of subatomic particles. There is no such animal as " pure animal, " not even in philosophy.

When Thomas Aquinas says matter at least eternal he is not saying that this ultimate matter has no form. In fact, as far as I know, he never explained exactly what he did mean. But this was philosophical speculation. We know from Revelation that the world will actually end.

Why don’t you take a peak at the Catechism of the Catholic Church linked below, it milght change your mind about a few things.

Linus2nd

 

[Winterwolf00]

I did not say that. Everything in our experience is composed of matter and form as evidenced by the fact that things are constantly changing. There is never a case where only matter exists, not even in the nano world of subatomic particles. There is no such animal as " pure animal, " not even in philosophy.

When Thomas Aquinas says matter at least eternal he is not saying that this ultimate matter has no form. In fact, as far as I know, he never explained exactly what he did mean. But this was philosophical speculation. We know from Revelation that the world will actually end.

Why don’t you take a peak at the Catechism of the Catholic Church linked below, it milght change your mind about a few things.

Linus2nd

I’d prefer for you to present the argument yourself then for me to go on a goose-chase to prove you right.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I’d prefer for you to present the argument yourself then for me to go on a goose-chase to prove you right.

I can’t think of anything else to say. I wish you well.

Linus2nd

 

[CrossofChrist]

No, you and everything you see around you is the form, matter/energy is the fundamental building block of this form.

There has to be a real distinction between different forms, or else all change is change into the same thing; i.e there is no change.

If you say that these distinct forms exist in themselves, then they also can’t change. If they can change, then their existences aren’t identical with their essences and therefore don’t exist of themselves. If they don’t exist of themselves, they must exist in something else. Now saying they don’t exist of themselves is the same as saying they don’t necessarily exist, that they are contingent; if they necessarily existed they wouldn’t have a distinction between essence and existence and they would just “be”. This totality of things can’t exist in the other within the common contingent existence of the others, and here’s why: the totality of these possible essences are either possible or necessary. But they can’t possibly be necessary, since the whole is made up of its parts which are contingent.

So there must be a necessary being that is identical in essence and existence and upholds all things that exist.

Any conscious being must look at themselves and wonder, where did I come from?

That isn’t true. If God is the first cause he wouldn’t have to.

But TBH, I need to spend less time here on CAF.

 

[CrossofChrist]

This totality of things can’t exist in the other within the common contingent existence of the others, and here’s why: the totality of these possible essences are either possible or necessary. But they can’t possibly be necessary, since the whole is made up of its parts which are contingent.

If the two existences were existing in the other and by that did away with their contingency, they would together have to necessarily exist in that case. And we go back to them not being able to change. What I meant in the above is that this can be applied to the whole circuit if everything was like that.

In the end you still need God.

 

[Partinobodycula]

There has to be a real distinction between different forms, or else all change is change into the same thing; i.e there is no change.

If you say that these distinct forms exist in themselves, then they also can’t change. If they can change, then their existences aren’t identical with their essences and therefore don’t exist of themselves. If they don’t exist of themselves, they must exist in something else. Now saying they don’t exist of themselves is the same as saying they don’t necessarily exist, that they are contingent; if they necessarily existed they wouldn’t have a distinction between essence and existence and they would just “be”. This totality of things can’t exist in the other within the common contingent existence of the others, and here’s why: the totality of these possible essences are either possible or necessary. But they can’t possibly be necessary, since the whole is made up of its parts which are contingent.

So there must be a necessary being that is identical in essence and existence and upholds all things that exist.

Sorry for my slow response. I tend to find intellectual discussions to be quite tedious, and so rather than engage in what will likely turn out to be a prolonged and futile debate, I will quite often fall silent. This is a shortcoming of mine. But in this case I will attempt to address your points.

After having given this considerable thought, and after having formulated a number of other more involved responses, I have decided to go with what I believe to be the simplest and easiest to grasp explanation for why matter\energy must be a necessary being, and God can’t be a necessary being. The reason that matter/energy must be a necessary being is that it simply can’t “not exist”.

There are things that Aquinas refers to as “contingent beings”. Things like you, your computer, the earth, and even molecules and atoms. These are things that could cease to exist without having absolutely everything else cease to exist as well. Even if atoms ceased to exist there would still be fundamental particles floating around whose existence would conceivably be unaffected by the loss of the atoms. But if matter/energy were to cease to exist, then everything would cease to exist. Nothing at all can exist without the existence of matter/energy. Thus matter/energy is a necessary being.

Ah, but you may counter that energy can be converted into matter, thus matter, since it can be created from energy, is a contingent being. But this is where it gets truly sticky, because there really is no such thing as pure energy. Essentially the closest that you can come to pure energy is the photon, and even the photon is classified as an elementary particle. About the best that you can do is to say that energy is an attribute that matter possesses. Energy is the “potential” for change. Matter on the other hand, is that which possesses the “ability” to change. So if I could separate matter and energy and say that the necessary being is energy, I would certainly do so, but I can’t, for without matter there simply is no potential for change, no energy.

That is why I refer to matter/energy as the necessary being, for without them nothing else would exist. They seem to fulfill the requirements of a necessary being. Without them nothing else would exist, and they can neither be created nor destroyed.

But there is also the argument as to why God can’t be the necessary being. At least God as defined by most theists as a conscious being.

Consciousness is an emergent phenomenon. Things can either “be” conscious, or they can “not be” conscious. It’s not necessary that they be one or the other. So consciousness must emerge from something that has the ability to be either conscious or not conscious. Something such as matter/energy. Matter/energy has the ability to be either conscious, or not conscious. Thus consciousness is an emergent phenomenon, and God as a conscious being, is also a contingent being.

 

[CrossofChrist]

Consciousness is an emergent phenomenon.

You should realize that any theist will reject this axiom.

 

[CrossofChrist]

Sorry for my slow response. I tend to find intellectual discussions to be quite tedious, and so rather than engage in what will likely turn out to be a prolonged and futile debate, I will quite often fall silent. This is a shortcoming of mine. But in this case I will attempt to address your points.

After having given this considerable thought, and after having formulated a number of other more involved responses, I have decided to go with what I believe to be the simplest and easiest to grasp explanation for why matter\energy must be a necessary being, and God can’t be a necessary being. The reason that matter/energy must be a necessary being is that it simply can’t “not exist”.

There are things that Aquinas refers to as “contingent beings”. Things like you, your computer, the earth, and even molecules and atoms. These are things that could cease to exist without having absolutely everything else cease to exist as well. Even if atoms ceased to exist there would still be fundamental particles floating around whose existence would conceivably be unaffected by the loss of the atoms. But if matter/energy were to cease to exist, then everything would cease to exist. Nothing at all can exist without the existence of matter/energy. Thus matter/energy is a necessary being.

Ah, but you may counter that energy can be converted into matter, thus matter, since it can be created from energy, is a contingent being. But this is where it gets truly sticky, because there really is no such thing as pure energy. Essentially the closest that you can come to pure energy is the photon, and even the photon is classified as an elementary particle. About the best that you can do is to say that energy is an attribute that matter possesses. Energy is the “potential” for change. Matter on the other hand, is that which possesses the “ability” to change. So if I could separate matter and energy and say that the necessary being is energy, I would certainly do so, but I can’t, for without matter there simply is no potential for change, no energy.

That is why I refer to matter/energy as the necessary being, for without them nothing else would exist. They seem to fulfill the requirements of a necessary being. Without them nothing else would exist, and they can neither be created nor destroyed.

But if energy/matter have identical essence and existence, then its nonsense to talk of any change.

Saying “nothing at all can exist without energy/matter” is begging the question.

Consciousness is an emergent phenomenon.

Something every (classical) theist will deny, since God isn’t an emergent phenomenon.

 

[Partinobodycula]

But if energy/matter have identical essence and existence…

This is exactly what I’m saying. I could refine my definition of matter/energy to include it’s nature as a quantum field, which is why at the beginning of my previous post I stated that I had “formulated a number of other more involved responses”. But to have gotten any more technical would have been to lose the interest of just about everyone reading the post. So I chose to keep it simple. Why? Because one of the defining characteristics of matter/energy is that it can neither be created nor destroyed, and this is one of Aquinas’ requirements of a necessary being. There may be more involved in understanding just what matter/energy is, but the concept was sufficient to make my point.

But basically the argument is the same. You ultimately reach a point where matter/energy either exists or it doesn’t. There’s no intermediate step between the two states, at which point its essence and its existence are the same. It exists. It’s a necessary being.
":

…, then its nonsense to talk of any change.

I’m curious as to why you believe this to be true. Could you elucidate?

Partinobodycula:

Consciousness is an emergent phenomenon.

Something every (classical) theist will deny, since God isn’t an emergent phenomenon.

In another thread it was mentioned that God doesn’t have emotions, He has attributes. I can understand things such as wisdom, or mercy, or omnipotence as being attributes. I can even understand God having attributes which could be construed as emotions. But consciousness appears to be much more than simply an attribute. Consciousness, in the context that I’m referring to it, isn’t simply an attribute that one has, but something that one actively does. The act of being conscious requires a complex system of thoughts, memories, and experiences. This is way more than a simple attribute.

To be precise I didn’t say that God is an emergent phenomenon, I said consciousness is an emergent phenomenon. Neither did I mean to imply that God isn’t conscious. How you choose to reconcile this seeming contradiction is up to you.

 

[lmelahn]

Herein lies the problem, for as far as we know, it’s impossible for matter/energy “not to be”. Therefore matter/energy would appear to fit the definition of a “necessary being”, as something which is incapable of being either created or destroyed.

Until such time as you can demonstrate the ability to create or destroy matter/energy we must assume that we’ve already found Aquinas’ necessary being. I would hesitate to describe it as God though, although you certainly can if you want to.

If you read the proof carefully, you will observe that “for necessary things, either the cause of their necessity lies elsewhere, or it does not.” The so-called necessaria need not be God, therefore. (For “necessary” beings, Aquinas is probably thinking of the planets, in accord with his cosmology, and of the angels.)

I agree, however, that Third Way is Aquinas’ weakest proof of the five. It is essentially borrowed from Avicenna (the 11th-century Persian philosopher Ibn Sina) and relies on the assumption that material things (the possibilia esse et non esse) left to themselves will eventually disintegrate into nothing—a notion that I think comes from Aquinas primitive cosmology, which assumes that the things on earth depend on the sun for their very existence.

(The most rigorous proof by far is the Fourth Way, which, in my opinion, is completely unencumbered by the limitations of the science of the time, because it is strictly metaphysical.)

 

[CrossofChrist]

This is exactly what I’m saying.

Ok, got it.

I’m curious as to why you believe this to be true. Could you elucidate?

If something undergoes change, there is a change in its existence, in how it exists in the present. So if there is no distinction between essence and existence in material things, then there are two options: there is a continual change in essence, or the change in existence of the essence (change) is an illusion.

In another thread it was mentioned that God doesn’t have emotions, He has attributes. I can understand things such as wisdom, or mercy, or omnipotence as being attributes. I can even understand God having attributes which could be construed as emotions. But consciousness appears to be much more than simply an attribute. Consciousness, in the context that I’m referring to it, isn’t simply an attribute that one has, but something that one actively does. The act of being conscious requires a complex system of thoughts, memories, and experiences. This is way more than a simple attribute.

To be precise I didn’t say that God is an emergent phenomenon, I said consciousness is an emergent phenomenon. Neither did I mean to imply that God isn’t conscious. How you choose to reconcile this seeming contradiction is up to you.

But if God just “is”, if he is entirely simple (one), then there isn’t anything to develop. The whole past, present, and future is “present” to God. So he just is conscious. God’s “being” is identical with his “doing”.

 

[Partinobodycula]

But if God just “is”, if he is entirely simple (one), then there isn’t anything to develop. The whole past, present, and future is “present” to God. So he just is conscious. God’s “being” is identical with his “doing”.

You can choose to believe that God is a conscious being, who thinks, and plans, and regrets, and remembers. And for all I know you may be right, but that’s not the God that Aquinas describes. Aquinas describes a God that is the same yesterday, today, and forever. A God without potentiality. A God who cannot change. I don’t mean this as a slight to God. It’s not a slight to God to say that He’s different than us. We experience the lineality of time. God doesn’t. We change. God doesn’t. We experience things, like love, and hope, and humility. God “IS” these things. For us these things are experiences. For God they’re attributes. He’s all of these things in their totality. In the greatest measure that they could ever be. This is how Aquinas described God.

If something undergoes change, there is a change in its existence, in how it exists in the present. So if there is no distinction between essence and existence in material things, then there are two options: there is a continual change in essence, or the change in existence of the essence (change) is an illusion.

You could look at it that way I suppose. But perhaps it would be helpful if I expounded upon the manner in which matter/energy fulfills Aquinas’ description of a necessary being, or God. When I refer to matter/energy I’m talking about the simplest components of the world around us that we as humans have the ability to observe or measure. But science tells us that beneath this “classical” world that we see, there’s another world that we don’t see. That we can’t see. The quantum world. Now none of us can be sure what this quantum world is like. We can hypothesize and theorize, but we can’t know. We’re stuck in our classical world and as Cor. 13:12 says, “now we see through a glass, darkly”, “now I know in part”. In the quantum world everything that has the potential to be, may actually be. Past, present, and future. Everything that could have been, or may be, is.

Consider that thought for a moment. Every act of compassion, and love, and mercy that could ever be, exists in one time, and in one place. But we simply cannot see it, for we are experiencing the world through the lineality and limitation of time. But in the quantum world everything exists in its totality, and in its greatest measure. That’s how Aquinas described God.

Now is all of this quantum world nonsense true? I don’t know. I’m just trying to reason it out like everyone else. Perhaps Aquinas had reasoned it out before me. To be honest, I can’t say if either of us is right. I leave that for you to decide.

 

[CrossofChrist]

You can choose to believe that God is a conscious being, who thinks, and plans, and regrets, and remembers. And for all I know you may be right, but that’s not the God that Aquinas describes. Aquinas describes a God that is the same yesterday, today, and forever. A God without potentiality. A God who cannot change. I don’t mean this as a slight to God. It’s not a slight to God to say that He’s different than us. We experience the lineality of time. God doesn’t. We change. God doesn’t. We experience things, like love, and hope, and humility. God “IS” these things. For us these things are experiences. For God they’re attributes. He’s all of these things in their totality. In the greatest measure that they could ever be. This is how Aquinas described God.

And I agree with Aquinas. But I still disagree with you that consciousness is an emergent phenomenon per se. God is aware (conscious) of reality precisely because there is no reality without him. Consciousness included.

You could look at it that way I suppose. But perhaps it would be helpful if I expounded upon the manner in which matter/energy fulfills Aquinas’ description of a necessary being, or God. When I refer to matter/energy I’m talking about the simplest components of the world around us that we as humans have the ability to observe or measure. But science tells us that beneath this “classical” world that we see, there’s another world that we don’t see. That we can’t see. The quantum world. Now none of us can be sure what this quantum world is like. We can hypothesize and theorize, but we can’t know. We’re stuck in our classical world and as Cor. 13:12 says, “now we see through a glass, darkly”, “now I know in part”. In the quantum world everything that has the potential to be, may actually be. Past, present, and future. Everything that could have been, or may be, is.

Consider that thought for a moment. Every act of compassion, and love, and mercy that could ever be, exists in one time, and in one place. But we simply cannot see it, for we are experiencing the world through the lineality and limitation of time. But in the quantum world everything exists in its totality, and in its greatest measure. That’s how Aquinas described God.

It seems to me that you have indeed claimed that change is ultimately an illusion. If every act of compassion, love, and I think you mean everything, exists in one time and place in the physical universe, then isn’t any change we experience in our time still illusory? Everything already “is”. Then there’s nothing to change into, nothing to become. You can only become if there is something else to attain, some goal to reach. You don’t have to achieve the goal to undergo change, but there has to be an end in the first place.

Now is all of this quantum world nonsense true? I don’t know.

I don’t know whether or not there are multiple universes. No one but God and the saints knows. But it doesn’t touch whether or not God exists or what the true religion is.

Gonna be out of town for a few days, so I’ll probably be a little slow on the next response if you reply. Just an FYI.