Thomas's forth way

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bahman
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Bahman

Guest
The proof:

The fourth way is taken from the gradation to be found in things. Among beings there are some more and some less good, true, noble and the like. But “more” and “less” are predicated of different things, according as they resemble in their different ways something which is the maximum, as a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest; so that there is something which is truest, something best, something noblest and, consequently, something which is uttermost being; for those things that are greatest in truth are greatest in being, as it is written in Metaph. ii. Now the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus; as fire, which is the maximum heat, is the cause of all hot things. Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.

Objections:

Change is the result of tendency toward an end, perfection is the end by definition hence no change is possible in this state. We however observe the change and that is only possible in absence of perfection.
 
Bahman said:
The proof:

The fourth way is taken from the gradation to be found in things. Among beings there are some more and some less good, true, noble and the like. But “more” and “less” are predicated of different things, according as they resemble in their different ways something which is the maximum, as a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest; so that there is something which is truest, something best, something noblest and, consequently, something which is uttermost being; for those things that are greatest in truth are greatest in being, as it is written in Metaph. ii. Now the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus; as fire, which is the maximum heat, is the cause of all hot things. Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.

Objections:

Change is the result of tendency toward an end, perfection is the end by definition hence no change is possible in this state. We however observe the change and that is only possible in absence of perfection.
Click to expand...
Have you read up on the transcendentals and their convertability? Being is convertible with truth, goodness, and unity.

Change, in the material world is the process of the reduction to actuality of a potency. This process is governed by efficient and final causation. The final causation has a good or perfection towards which a particular efficient cause tends. It is, of course, a limited perfection, that often results in some new substance which has its own final cause. All this to say that the material world is by definition, imperfect, because always changing. Only that which is pure actuality and in no way a composite of potency and actuality, is most perfect. And only this being is unchanging.

God bless,
Ut
 
utunumsint said:
Have you read up on the transcendentals and their convertability? Being is convertible with truth, goodness, and unity.

Change, in the material world is the process of the reduction to actuality of a potency. This process is governed by efficient and final causation. The final causation has a good or perfection towards which a particular efficient cause tends. It is, of course, a limited perfection, that often results in some new substance which has its own final cause. All this to say that the material world is by definition, imperfect, because always changing. Only that which is pure actuality and in no way a composite of potency and actuality, is most perfect. And only this being is unchanging.

God bless,
Ut
Click to expand...
We are talking about this specific proof. If it is a proof it should stand on its own. I am very aware of other proofs and provide my objections shortly.
 
Bahman said:
We are talking about this specific proof. If it is a proof it should stand on its own. I am very aware of other proofs and provide my objections shortly.
Click to expand...
If you have no idea of the metaphysical background that Aquinas assumed, then no, the proof will not stand on its own.

God bless,
Ut
 
Bahman said:
The proof:

The fourth way is taken from the gradation to be found in things. Among beings there are some more and some less good, true, noble and the like. But “more” and “less” are predicated of different things, according as they resemble in their different ways something which is the maximum, as a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest; so that there is something which is truest, something best, something noblest and, consequently, something which is uttermost being; for those things that are greatest in truth are greatest in being, as it is written in Metaph. ii. Now the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus; as fire, which is the maximum heat, is the cause of all hot things. Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.

Objections:

Change is the result of tendency toward an end, perfection is the end by definition hence no change is possible in this state. We however observe the change and that is only possible in absence of perfection.
Click to expand...
I’ve seen a number of good objections to this argument that I think are difficult to answer but I guess I just don’t see how this is really an objection at all.

This is your argument in argument form:

P1. Chang is the result of tendency toward an end.
P2. Perfection is this end.
C1. Change is the result of tendency toward a perfection.
P3. By definition, there is no change in an end state.
C2. There is no change in the state of perfection
C3. Change is only possible in absence of perfection

This seems to me completely consistent with the argument. God is the unmoved mover and is not himself in motion. As you say, this entails that God is perfect because he is not in motion and that everything in motion is not perfect.
 
TheSecondMile said:
I’ve seen a number of good objections to this argument that I think are difficult to answer but I guess I just don’t see how this is really an objection at all.

This is your argument in argument form:

P1. Chang is the result of tendency toward an end.
P2. Perfection is this end.
C1. Change is the result of tendency toward a perfection.
P3. By definition, there is no change in an end state.
C2. There is no change in the state of perfection
C3. Change is only possible in absence of perfection

This seems to me completely consistent with the argument. God is the unmoved mover and is not himself in motion. As you say, this entails that God is perfect because he is not in motion and that everything in motion is not perfect.
Click to expand...
But C3 indicates that God does not exist since otherwise no change was possible.
 
Bahman said:
But C3 indicates that God does not exist since otherwise no change was possible.
Click to expand...
Change is only possible in absence of perfection therefore no change is possible? There has to be some hidden premises there.
 
Bahman said:
There is no hidden premises. It is clear crystal.
Click to expand...
Who are we to question God’s perfect ways? For all we know, the imperfections in creation that we see are part of God’s perfect plan. In any case, we as Catholics, do not see any change in God’s being in His act of creation. The rays of the sun are one of the fundamental causes of the existence of life on earth, yet the earth causes no change to the sun. And God as pure actuality may operate in the same way. He is pure creative power.

God bless,
Ut
 
utunumsint said:
Who are we to question God’s perfect ways? For all we know, the imperfections in creation that we see are part of God’s perfect plan. In any case, we as Catholics, do not see any change in God’s being in His act of creation. The rays of the sun are one of the fundamental causes of the existence of life on earth, yet the earth causes no change to the sun. And God as pure actuality may operate in the same way. He is pure creative power.

God bless,
Ut
Click to expand...
I am sorry but you are deviating from reasoning.
 
Bahman said:
There is no hidden premises. It is clear crystal.
Click to expand...
I’m not following.

C3 entails that things in motion are not perfect and that which is not in motion is perfect but your claim is that if God exists then no change is possible. God is unchanging because he is not in motion, but that does not imply that he cannot be the efficient cause of things that we observe that are in motion.
 
TheSecondMile said:
I’m not following.

C3 entails that things in motion are not perfect and that which is not in motion is perfect but your claim is that if God exists then no change is possible. God is unchanging because he is not in motion, but that does not imply that he cannot be the efficient cause of things that we observe that are in motion.
Click to expand...
How change is possible? In the absence of perfection, so called God. In another word, no change is possible if God exists.
 
Bahman said:
How change is possible? In the absence of perfection, so called God. In another word, no change is possible if God exist.
Click to expand...
I’m still not following.

Change is possible for things in motion and impossible for that which is not in motion.

You seem to be saying:

P1. If God exists then change is not possible
P2. Change is possible
C1. God does not exist

This is valid but P1 is false. The existence of God does not imply that change is impossible, just that God is unchanging. Change is possible in things which are not God, for things in motion.
 
TheSecondMile said:
I’m still not following.

Change is possible for things in motion and impossible for that which is not in motion.

You seem to be saying:

P1. If God exists then change is not possible
P2. Change is possible
C1. God does not exist

This is valid but P1 is false. The existence of God does not imply that change is impossible, just that God is unchanging. Change is possible in things which are not God, for things in motion.
Click to expand...
I can argue this in more clear way.

P1: Change exists
P2: There is no change in perfection
C1: Perfection does not exist
 
Bahman said:
I can argue this in more clear way.

P1: Change exists
P2: There is no change in perfection
C1: Perfection does not exist
Click to expand...
C1 does not follow. C1 should be not all things are perfect or things that change are imperfect.

I have to go now but I will be happy to continue this later.
 
Bahman said:
I can argue this in more clear way.

P1: Change exists
P2: There is no change in perfection
C1: Perfection does not exist
Click to expand...
How about these:

P1: Confusion exists
P2: There is no confusion in truth
C1: Truth does not exist

Or

P1: Ugliness exists
P2: There is no ugliness in beauty
C1: Beauty does not exist

God bless,
Ut
 
TheSecondMile said:
C1 does not follow. C1 should be not all things are perfect or things that change are imperfect.

I have to go now but I will be happy to continue this later.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I am missing something and you were correct. Thanks for insisting.

P1: Change exists
P2: There is no change in perfection
C1: Change is only possible in absence of perfection
C2: Perfection and imperfection are mutually exclusive
C3: Perfection cannot exist objectively
C4: Hence perfection is only subjective

In simple word, God is only a subjective concept because it cannot objectively be realized. This is weaker than what I expected but it is sufficient. I will think further if I could make the argument stronger. I am very tired now. Sorry.
 
utunumsint said:
How about these:

P1: Confusion exists
P2: There is no confusion in truth
C1: Truth does not exist

Or

P1: Ugliness exists
P2: There is no ugliness in beauty
C1: Beauty does not exist

God bless,
Ut
Click to expand...
Please read post #19. I also think you can find interesting conclusions if you work on your arguments a little further.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top