Thomas Aquinas, The Unmoved Mover

[punkforchrist]

If a house were eternal, its standing would be caused by its foundation, even though one does not precede the other in time. Of course, if we are talking about the events of causes, then we do introduce time. Time just is a measurement of change.

For proponents of the argument from motion, God’s act of changing the cosmos is temporal, even though God Himself is timeless. We might think of the beauty of a statue, which doesn’t have to change in order to “move” the observer.

 

[levinas12]

If a house were eternal, its standing would be caused by its foundation, even though one does not precede the other in time. Of course, if we are talking about the events of causes, then we do introduce time. Time just is a measurement of change.

For proponents of the argument from motion, God’s act of changing the cosmos is temporal, even though God Himself is timeless. We might think of the beauty of a statue, which doesn’t have to change in order to “move” the observer.

I think we need to keep straight the various kinds of causality (efficient, formal, material, final) … as Creator at a specific moment in the past, God is an efficient cause but out of a non-temporal, non-spatial context … but this is not the efficient causality addressed in Thomas’ proof … as Sustainer of motion, God may be both an efficient cause and a final cause … a final cause, as in Aristotle, as the object or end of desire (for the heavenly spheres moved by the angels) … Thomas’ argument from motion does not assume creation … does not relate to the Big Bang … per Thomas, philosophy cannot demonstrate that the universe had a finite beginning … so, for Thomas’ philosophical proof, God’s efficient causality is as Sustainer … this is consistent with Aristotle who assumed an eternal universe …

I may be wrong about this … any Thomists out there?

 

[Joel_PF]

You are absolutely right, Levinas.

I just think (contrary to St. Thomas), that the universe being eternal is an impossibility, and that looking at the universe (creatures), nothing indicates that they need an external principle of movement to remain moving (that is, changing one another) after the process has already begun.

 

[Trevor_Stamm]

You cannot have a cause unless you also have time. Your “first cause” cannot possibly be “outside of time”. Cause comes before the effect. Here the word “before” requires time. If there is no time then you cannot tell whether A cams before B or if B came before A. Hence you cannot distinguish cause from effect.

Causation requires time. In the absence of time there is no causation.

How do you know that your proposed “first cause” is not really the “second cause” unless you can distinguish between first and second? How do you distinguish between first and second in the absence of time?

rossum

Let me rephrase, something that is not “bound by time”.

What is the only definition of something that is not bound by time? Infiniteness, God. Time was a coupled effect with the first cause. That would require a definition of the first cause. What is it? Creation of the finiteness, and finiteness also includes time. We observe in Gen 1:1 " In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." This Scripture flows with my point. The singularity was not a second cause of the first cause (time), they both are encompass with the first cause.

 

[rossum]

Creation of the finiteness, and finiteness also includes time.

A Creator cannot be a creator unless there is also a creation. A parent must have children, a parent with no children is a logical nonsense. There cannot be a creator unless and until there is a creation; each is dependent on the other.

Before (time again!) the act of creation there was no creator. Only a creator-to-be. Time is required for the creator-to-be to actually perform the act of creation and to become a real creator.

Both creator and creation are mutually conditioning.

Getting back to the Prime Mover. It cannot be a mover unless and until it has actually moved something. A mover that hasn’t moved anything cannot be a mover, just a mover-to-be.

Both mover and moved are mutually conditioning.

rossum

 

[Trevor_Stamm]

A Creator cannot be a creator unless there is also a creation. A parent must have children, a parent with no children is a logical nonsense. There cannot be a creator unless and until there is a creation; each is dependent on the other.

Before (time again!) the act of creation there was no creator. Only a creator-to-be. Time is required for the creator-to-be to actually perform the act of creation and to become a real creator.

Both creator and creation are mutually conditioning.

Getting back to the Prime Mover. It cannot be a mover unless and until it has actually moved something. A mover that hasn’t moved anything cannot be a mover, just a mover-to-be.

Both mover and moved are mutually conditioning.

rossum

Yes, the “effect cannot exist without the cause and there would be no cause without the intent of effect” premise. Was that Aristotle? I think I remember eastern philosophers making this point too.

Also scientifically observed is “an effect is never greater then it’s cause”. But remember, “a cause is never greater then it’s causer”. That being the case, the universe is not equal to God nor does God need our existence.

But isn’t this just a play on semantics here?

ps. glad I’m not the only one with insomnia

 

[punkforchrist]

I think we need to keep straight the various kinds of causality (efficient, formal, material, final) … as Creator at a specific moment in the past, God is an efficient cause but out of a non-temporal, non-spatial context … but this is not the efficient causality addressed in Thomas’ proof … as Sustainer of motion, God may be both an efficient cause and a final cause … a final cause, as in Aristotle, as the object or end of desire (for the heavenly spheres moved by the angels) … Thomas’ argument from motion does not assume creation … does not relate to the Big Bang … per Thomas, philosophy cannot demonstrate that the universe had a finite beginning … so, for Thomas’ philosophical proof, God’s efficient causality is as Sustainer … this is consistent with Aristotle who assumed an eternal universe …

I may be wrong about this … any Thomists out there?

Oh, I completely agree. Earlier I gave the example of an eternal watch, which still has to have a spring to sustain its motion. This is just an analogy to show that eternal (mutable) things would still have to be caused in some sense. Whether the universe had a beginning in the finite past (per Big Bang cosmology) or is eternal in the past is inconsequential to the argument from motion.

Incidentally, it’s specifically Thomas’ second way that appeals to efficient causality.

 

[GloriousOrder]

I think we need to keep straight the various kinds of causality (efficient, formal, material, final) … as Creator at a specific moment in the past, God is an efficient cause but out of a non-temporal, non-spatial context … but this is not the efficient causality addressed in Thomas’ proof … as Sustainer of motion, God may be both an efficient cause and a final cause … a final cause, as in Aristotle, as the object or end of desire (for the heavenly spheres moved by the angels) … Thomas’ argument from motion does not assume creation … does not relate to the Big Bang … per Thomas, philosophy cannot demonstrate that the universe had a finite beginning … so, for Thomas’ philosophical proof, God’s efficient causality is as Sustainer … this is consistent with Aristotle who assumed an eternal universe …

I may be wrong about this … any Thomists out there?

God must be the proper object of the Universe according to all four causes, actually. He is the material cause because all matter and energy that exists comes entirely from His self-existing ‘being’, and without His pre-existence there would be no “thing” from which this “no-thing” might be fashioned. He is the formal cause because all things, from galactic filaments to atomic nuclei, are created by Him in a hierarchy of order that mirrors the internal order of His perfect existence. He is the efficient cause of creation because all things are put into being by Him who holds being essentially and necessarily. He is the final cause because all things must end, and upon ending their substance reverts to Him, since all dependent things are eventually assumed into independent things by nature.

You were right, but didn’t go far enough!

 

[levinas12]

God must be the proper object of the Universe according to all four causes, actually. He is the material cause because all matter and energy that exists comes entirely from His self-existing ‘being’, and without His pre-existence there would be no “thing” from which this “no-thing” might be fashioned. He is the formal cause because all things, from galactic filaments to atomic nuclei, are created by Him in a hierarchy of order that mirrors the internal order of His perfect existence. He is the efficient cause of creation because all things are put into being by Him who holds being essentially and necessarily. He is the final cause because all things must end, and upon ending their substance reverts to Him, since all dependent things are eventually assumed into independent things by nature.

You were right, but didn’t go far enough!

Not sure if this is in Thomas. Certainly, efficient cause. And maybe final cause. Formal cause? Are you equating forms with divine exemplars? Material cause? God as the source of prime matter? Do you have the citations?

 

[Trevor_Stamm]

Not sure if this is in Thomas. Certainly, efficient cause. And maybe final cause. Formal cause? Are you equating forms with divine exemplars? Material cause? God as the source of prime matter? Do you have the citations?

I was saying this in the “4 causes” thread myself as well. God is the efficient cause of the universe. The material cause is energy. Formal cause… can we put a shape of the universe? Let’s just call it, space. Final cause of the universe is the ability to support finite life.

Material > formal > efficient > final. The only subject that is not bound by the four causes is God, maybe abstract thought is but even then Aquinas made a case of that “thought” has existence through “essence and existence” doctrine.

 

[punkforchrist]

The material cause of the universe is just the fundamental matter out of which the universe is made. However, the universe did not have a material cause in God’s act of creation (creatio ex nihilo). God is efficient cause insofar as He is the producer of the universe. He is final cause insofar as He is the universe’s end, or object of desire. The formal cause is the idea of the universe within the mind of God, much like an architect has the idea of a house.

The latter three types of causes are regularly used in arguments of natural theology, but not material cause so much.

 

[GloriousOrder]

I have no citations because I thought it up using St. Thomas’ mindset. The statement that “God is the material cause of the universe” simply must be true, because the Universe is built on nothing but the self-existence of God. It had no form, matter, or energy before it was created out of nothing. We can say that the Universe’s material cause is literally nothing, but that’s impossible because God preceded nothing. I think the Universe is simply constructed of God’s self-giving essence: His existence was needed, and it is the abstract ‘material’ upon which reality is built.

It may be arrogant of me to say I can encapsulate Aquinas so fully in my head as to say “this is his mindset”, but it’s an attempt at independent rational thought. We shouldn’t just rely on St. Thomas’ words, but on his system and view of the world. He came to his conclusions by logical debate and fair argument, and invited everyone to talk with him on any subject. Let us engage him in the same way, even though he is dwelling in the Empyrean!

 

[punkforchrist]

Some points of difference notwithstanding, I like your attitude.

 

[levinas12]

I have no citations because I thought it up using St. Thomas’ mindset. The statement that “God is the material cause of the universe” simply must be true, because the Universe is built on nothing but the self-existence of God. It had no form, matter, or energy before it was created out of nothing. We can say that the Universe’s material cause is literally nothing, but that’s impossible because God preceded nothing. I think the Universe is simply constructed of God’s self-giving essence: His existence was needed, and it is the abstract ‘material’ upon which reality is built.

It may be arrogant of me to say I can encapsulate Aquinas so fully in my head as to say “this is his mindset”, but it’s an attempt at independent rational thought. We shouldn’t just rely on St. Thomas’ words, but on his system and view of the world. He came to his conclusions by logical debate and fair argument, and invited everyone to talk with him on any subject. Let us engage him in the same way, even though he is dwelling in the Empyrean!

I agree. I just wasn’t sure if Thomas himself had addressed the question of God as a material cause.

God as the source of the forms is interesting. Aristotle’s God is not an efficient cause, has no awareness of the rest of the universe, is not the source of the forms … but is a final cause (without knowing it). Plato at least has the Demiurge as an efficient cause … but this agent also is not the source of the Forms … more a craftsman. Thomas extended this Platonic theme into a Christian philosophical context.

 

[levinas12]

The first mover is not first in time, but first in causality. All the movers are simultaneous; in the same moment, gear 1 moves gear 2, gear 2 moves gear 3, etc In Aristotle, instead of gears, it’s spheres that are moving, one sphere enclosed in the next, etc … the first all encompassing sphere moves by desire (of the unmoved mover, i.e., God) … then this movement moves the rest, all at the same time …

I don’t think I got this right after all … the outermost sphere (fixed stars) does not move all the other inner spheres … the motions of the spheres are independent of each other … Aristotle assigns more than 50 unmoved movers (intelligences) to the various spheres … and this is also true of Aquinas … well, back to the drawing board.

 

[Betterave]

God must be the proper object of the Universe according to all four causes, actually. He is the material cause because all matter and energy that exists comes entirely from His self-existing ‘being’, and without His pre-existence there would be no “thing” from which this “no-thing” might be fashioned.

Creation is ex nihilo, not ex Deo. So no, God is not the material cause of the universe.

He is the formal cause because all things, from galactic filaments to atomic nuclei, are created by Him in a hierarchy of order that mirrors the internal order of His perfect existence.

Again, no, God is not the formal cause of all things or of the universe. Created forms are.

He is the efficient cause of creation because all things are put into being by Him who holds being essentially and necessarily.

Yes, he is an efficient cause, he brings the world into being.

He is the final cause because all things must end, and upon ending their substance reverts to Him, since all dependent things are eventually assumed into independent things by nature.

No, not all things must end, and for things that do end, their substances do not revert back to God. That is not compatible with Catholic belief, surely? And I have no idea what you mean when you state that “all dependent things are eventually assumed into independent things by nature” - care to explain?

 

[levinas12]

I don’t think I got this right after all … the outermost sphere (fixed stars) does not move all the other inner spheres … the motions of the spheres are independent of each other … Aristotle assigns more than 50 unmoved movers (intelligences) to the various spheres … and this is also true of Aquinas … well, back to the drawing board.

Well, here’s another correction … to the above correction … the outermost concentric sphere does move all the inner spheres in one direction (from east to west, the daily rotation of all the objects in the sky). It is this movement that causes most if not all the changes below the moon (i.e., on the earth). The other unmoved movers assigned to the inner spheres account for the wandering of the planets back and forth during the year (in addition to their daily rotation from east to west). This planetary movement, per medieval astrology, might account for any sublunar changes not due to the diurnal rotation.

This is the cosmological example (for Thomas) of a simultaneous hierarchy of efficient causes. The question is whether, with the demise of the Aristolean spheres, the argument falls apart. I noticed that another recent thread is struggling to come up with examples of a hierarchy of efficient causes. Perhaps, on the quantum level, the oscillating strings might be seen as the first moving mover (analogous to the outermost sphere).

 

[Trevor_Stamm]

Creation is ex nihilo, not ex Deo. So no, God is not the material cause of the universe.

Again, no, God is not the formal cause of all things or of the universe. Created forms are.

Yes, he is an efficient cause, he brings the world into being.

No, not all things must end, and for things that do end, their substances do not revert back to God. That is not compatible with Catholic belief, surely? And I have no idea what you mean when you state that “all dependent things are eventually assumed into independent things by nature” - care to explain?

Exactly, I wanted to say earlier that if one believes the universe springs forth out of God (ex Deo) is pantheistic, and that’s a big no-no. Not only with the Magisterium viewing it as heresy but also a metaphysical impossibility. Like my post earlier with the four causes of the universe: Energy (material) > Space (formal) > God (efficient) > Life (final).

 

[kbachler]

If a house were eternal, its standing would be caused by its foundation, even though one does not precede the other in time. Of course, if we are talking about the events of causes, then we do introduce time. Time just is a measurement of change.

For proponents of the argument from motion, God’s act of changing the cosmos is temporal, even though God Himself is timeless. We might think of the beauty of a statue, which doesn’t have to change in order to “move” the observer.

But see, the problem with both arguments (“If a house were eternal, its standing would be caused by its foundation, even though one does not precede the other in time.” and the motion argument) is that OUR concept of motion, OUR concept of cause, is firmly founded on (and literally caused by) our reason developing in a temporal universe which allows us to develop a sense of time and space.

To then try to objectively “de-temporalize” the concepts is absurd - just as in hindsight it was absurd for Newton to think of the universe as an empty Euclidean space that we can suddenly put one object in and push it to derive laws of motion. Einstein shows that while this works in the simple case, the concept of even adding the box would (essentially) cause Minkowski space-time.

Thus, the Aquinas argument has a fatal structural fault that undermines the entire logical scheme. That is, his argument only works if his proof is correct, which means the argument is petitio principii

 

[Betterave]

But see, the problem with both arguments (“If a house were eternal, its standing would be caused by its foundation, even though one does not precede the other in time.” and the motion argument) is that OUR concept of motion, OUR concept of cause, is firmly founded on (and literally caused by) our reason developing in a temporal universe which allows us to develop a sense of time and space.

How is our concept of cause caused by our reason developing in a temporal universe?

To then try to objectively “de-temporalize” the concepts is absurd

What does that mean, and why is it absurd?

Thus, the Aquinas argument has a fatal structural fault that undermines the entire logical scheme. That is, his argument only works if his proof is correct, which means the argument is petitio principii

“his argument only works if his proof is correct”? That sounds like a truism; it sure doesn’t seem to mean that the argument is a petitio principii (that sounds like a non sequitur).