Thomas's third way

[Bahman]

Proof:

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.

Objections:

There dose not exist anything in nature which is possible. Whatever exists there on spot and at given time is necessary.

We don’t need to go back to infinite past if the chain of necessary things is infinite. One can assume a singular beginning at which the number of necessary things in a given time interval, short enough, grows in a singular manner as we get closer to the point.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Proof:

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.

Objections:

 

[Bahman]

Nothing in the material substance in the universe is necessary. Every thing is decaying, dying, changing, coming into being. So if the universe has always been that way, then now nothing would exist " on spot " at " given time. "

Every instance of what happen on spot and at now is necessary. So I provided a counterexample. Why we should bother with case individuals?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Every instance of what happen on spot and at now is necessary. So I provided a counterexample. Why we should bother with case individuals?

The fact that it exists now does not mean it is necessary. Show me one thing that exists now that is not subject to death or corruption or change, that did not come to be, that has always existed… The potential to die or corrupt or change, to come to be, to not have been, means that things subject to these excigencies are not necessary - they can either be or not be, they are merely possible, there was a possibility for them never to have been.

Pax Christi

Linus2nd

 

[TheSecondMile]

I agree with the other posters. I think your problem is you do not properly understand what necessity means because you are asserting that changing things, things with potency, can be necessary, which they cannot.

To be necessary means that your essence is not distinct from your existence. It is therefore impossible for something which is necessary to not exist or to change because its essence is to be.

St. Thomas is saying that things in which existence does not belong to its essence must receive its existence from some external efficient cause. If this efficient cause is itself a thing in which existence does not belong to its essence, then it too must receive its existence from some external efficient cause and so on until you come to that reality in which essence and existence are not distinct, which is God.

 

[Jerurussia]

May I humbly note that after Thomas’ beatific vision, he said that all he had written was “dung” and that God’s system, to paraphrase brutally, was…simple, elegant. Might be a mystic-physicist-philospher we’re looking for here. Saint Teresa of Jesus meets CERN meets Thomas…

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I agree with the other posters. I think your problem is you do not properly understand what necessity means because you are asserting that changing things, things with potency, can be necessary, which they cannot.

To be necessary means that your essence is not distinct from your existence. It is therefore impossible for something which is necessary to not exist or to change because its essence is to be.

St. Thomas is saying that things in which existence does not belong to its essence must receive its existence from some external efficient cause. If this efficient cause is itself a thing in which existence does not belong to its essence, then it too must receive its existence from some external efficient cause and so on until you come to that reality in which essence and existence are not distinct, which is God.

That is not exactly true in the opinion of St. Thomas. He would argue that the human soul and the essence of Angels are necessary once they were created since there is in them no potency to corrupt their natures, they have no potency to non-existence. So they are necessary but not in the same sense that God is necessary. So we might say that Thomas is applying the principle of analogy to ’ necessary ’ as it applies to spirits and to God.

Pax Christi
Linus2nd

 

[TheSecondMile]

That is not exactly true in the opinion of St. Thomas. He would argue that the human soul and the essence of Angels are necessary once they were created since there is in them no potency to corrupt their natures, they have no potency to non-existence. So they are necessary but not in the same sense that God is necessary. So we might say that Thomas is applying the principle of analogy to ’ necessary ’ as it applies to spirits and to God.

Pax Christi
Linus2nd

That is not what he says in On Being and Essence. Angels, or intelligences as he calls them, still contain a mixture of potency because they are created beings. He says they are pure form but they are composites of being and essence, only God is pure being.

EDIT: Also, how can something created be necessary?

 

[TheSecondMile]

May I humbly note that after Thomas’ beatific vision, he said that all he had written was “dung” and that God’s system, to paraphrase brutally, was…simple, elegant. Might be a mystic-physicist-philospher we’re looking for here. Saint Teresa of Jesus meets CERN meets Thomas…

Yes, because we cannot know God perfectly through reason alone but I still think St. Thomas very successfully used reason to come to know God, albeit in a finite way. It is not surprising that this knowledge pales in comparison to a beatific vision.

 

[Bahman]

The fact that it exists now does not mean it is necessary. Show me one thing that exists now that is not subject to death or corruption or change, that did not come to be, that has always existed.

Why necessity should means that a thing should have always existed? Necessity talk about brute fact which impose that things has to be the way they should on the spot. Once, decision is made then the result of decision manifest itself as an act on the spot.

The potential to die or corrupt or change, to come to be, to not have been, means that things subject to these excigencies are not necessary - they can either be or not be, they are merely possible, there was a possibility for them never to have been.

Pax Christi

Linus2nd

Things are only possible before a conscious being decide in a situation. Once decision is made then we have to face the brute fact which is necessity.

 

[Bahman]

I agree with the other posters. I think your problem is you do not properly understand what necessity means because you are asserting that changing things, things with potency, can be necessary, which they cannot.

I do completely understand what I am talking about. Options are potential before a being with free will ability decide. Once decision is made we have to face the brute fact which is the act on the spot.

To be necessary means that your essence is not distinct from your existence. It is therefore impossible for something which is necessary to not exist or to change because its essence is to be.

There exist not a conscious being with such a quality. Consciousness by definition is a irreducible thing which grants the ability to experience and affect mental states. A conscious being can decide because its real essence, consciousness, is different from its existence.

St. Thomas is saying that things in which existence does not belong to its essence must receive its existence from some external efficient cause. If this efficient cause is itself a thing in which existence does not belong to its essence, then it too must receive its existence from some external efficient cause and so on until you come to that reality in which essence and existence are not distinct, which is God.

We owe our existence to our parents and nature. We can stand on nature shoulder once we mature enough. His argument remind me this caricature: http://27.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lfdsdugCqQ1qartlio1_500.jpg

 

[Linusthe2nd]

That is not what he says in On Being and Essence. Angels, or intelligences as he calls them, still contain a mixture of potency because they are created beings. He says they are pure form but they are composites of being and essence, only God is pure being.

EDIT: Also, how can something created be necessary?

I said that their necessity involved the fact that they had no corruptive matter. So once God gave them existence they would exist forever, unless God chose to annihilate them. It would not be the absolute necessity of God but a natural necessity - due to the fact that they are forms/spirits not dependent on matter. You don’t have to agree with me. And I cannot remember where I picked up this notion. If I can ever find the source I will come back and tell you.

Pax Christi
Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Why necessity should means that a thing should have always existed? Necessity talk about brute fact which impose that things has to be the way they should on the spot. Once, decision is made then the result of decision manifest itself as an act on the spot.

" Necessary " is being used here in a philosophical sense. It means " cannot not be. " It means that something does not depend on anything else for its existence. Now if you decide to do something, that " something " depends on you for existence. It was and is a mere " possible. " It did not have to exist, and at some time in the future it will not exist…

Things are only possible before a conscious being decide in a situation. Once decision is made then we have to face the brute fact which is necessity.

No. I just explained why.

Linus2nd

 

[TheSecondMile]

I do completely understand what I am talking about. Options are potential before a being with free will ability decide. Once decision is made we have to face the brute fact which is the act on the spot.

There exist not a conscious being with such a quality. Consciousness by definition is a irreducible thing which grants the ability to experience and affect mental states. A conscious being can decide because its real essence, consciousness, is different from its existence.

What? I am at a loss for what you were trying to say in that first paragraph.

Consciousness just means the ability to be aware of the sensible world. It is by no means necessary because it is contingent on sense organs.

We owe our existence to our parents and nature. We can stand on nature shoulder once we mature enough. His argument remind me this caricature:

Yes, but our parents are beings whose essence is distinct from their existence and so must be explained by an external efficient cause.

 

[TheSecondMile]

I said that their necessity involved the fact that they had no corruptive matter. So once God gave them existence they would exist forever, unless God chose to annihilate them. It would not be the absolute necessity of God but a natural necessity - due to the fact that they are forms/spirits not dependent on matter. You don’t have to agree with me. And I cannot remember where I picked up this notion. If I can ever find the source I will come back and tell you.

Pax Christi
Linus2nd

I think we just have a semantic misunderstanding and not a substantive difference. To me, to say something is necessary is to say that its essence is not distinct from its existence. You seem to be using necessary in a different way such that to say that something is necessary means that it is not an actuality of matter and so can subsist without it. On that understanding, I agree that spirits are necessary.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I think we just have a semantic misunderstanding and not a substantive difference. To me, to say something is necessary is to say that its essence is not distinct from its existence. You seem to be using necessary in a different way such that to say that something is necessary means that it is not an actuality of matter and so can subsist without it. On that understanding, I agree that spirits are necessary.

Don’t worry, I may be wrong. I may be thinking of something Aristotle said. You can call the soul and angels, subsistent essences.

Pax
Linus2nd

 

[Bahman]

What? I am at a loss for what you were trying to say in that first paragraph.

Which part is confusing to you. Please elaborate so we can discuss it to the depth.

Consciousness just means the ability to be aware of the sensible world. It is by no means necessary because it is contingent on sense organs.

No. You will fall in trap of epiphenomalism if you think so meaning that there is no use of concessions. Otherwise you are faced with a paradox which states how consciousness which by product of neural activity can affect neural activity itself. External sense organs plus internal one grant you awareness but not consciousness.

Yes, but our parents are beings whose essence is distinct from their existence and so must be explained by an external efficient cause.

All you need is food to eat, air to breath, water to drink and space to move. Forget about all these complexities. The reality is very simple and we have a common sense of it.

 

[Bahman]

" Necessary " is being used here in a philosophical sense. It means " cannot not be. " It means that something does not depend on anything else for its existence.

That I understand. But such God as a necessary concept does not exist. Please read the following argument.

Now if you decide to do something, that " something " depends on you for existence. It was and is a mere " possible. " It did not have to exist, and at some time in the future it will not exist.

It was possible but it is necessary.

No. I just explained why.

Linus2nd

Argument:

P1) A necessary being is a being that its existence does not depend on other existence
P2) A possible being is a being that its existence does depend on other existence
C1) From P1 and P2 we can conclude that a necessary and possible being are mutually exclusive
P3) Lets define the whole as sum of necessary and possible things
C2) This means that there exist a boundary which separate necessary being from possible being
C4) Such a boundary cannot possibly exist since we don’t have any other category which is nor necessary neither possible
C5) This means that we could either have necessary being or possible being but not both in the whole

C5 can have different meaning depending on how do you define whole. Lets define whole as the sum of creation (possible) or God (necessary). God by definition is pure existence which means that he cannot exist and exist not. C5 means that if God exist then creation does exist not and vice versa. We however know that we do exist hence God cannot exist.

C5 can also have another meaning. Lets consider the whole as what appears to consciousness as possible and the act of consciousness as necessary. The example of possibilities are, options when a decision is involved, thoughts, experience, etc. The example of necessaries are action, understanding, existence, etc. This means that what is experience in consciousness cannot coexist with the act of consciousness which is existence. This means that experience can only happen in absence of existence and existence can only happen in absence of experience.

 

[Bahman]

I agree with the other posters. I think your problem is you do not properly understand what necessity means because you are asserting that changing things, things with potency, can be necessary, which they cannot.

To be necessary means that your essence is not distinct from your existence. It is therefore impossible for something which is necessary to not exist or to change because its essence is to be.

St. Thomas is saying that things in which existence does not belong to its essence must receive its existence from some external efficient cause. If this efficient cause is itself a thing in which existence does not belong to its essence, then it too must receive its existence from some external efficient cause and so on until you come to that reality in which essence and existence are not distinct, which is God.

Please read the post #18.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

… God as a necessary concept does not exist…

I think you are being an obstructionist. God is not a concept. He is exists necessarily because he is pure existence, he is not dependent on anyone else for his existence.

It was possible but it is necessary.

No. A ’ possible being ’ cannot also be a ’ necessary being. ’ If its existence was caused by another, it is a ’ possible being.’ I gave you the following explanation: " Now if you decide to do something, that " something " depends on you for existence. It was and is a mere " possible. " It did not have to exist, and at some time in the future it will not exist. "

That should be clear enough. But you seem to think that just because something exists now that it is a ’ necessary being. ’ As I showed you that is false. Things are either caused to exist or they exist under their own power and without cause. The former are ’ possible beings ’ and nothing can turn them into ’ necessary beings. ’ Only the latter are ’ necessary beings. ’

Argument:

P1) A necessary being is a being that its existence does not depend on other existence

Yes

P2) A possible being is a being that its existence does depend on other existence

Yes

C1) From P1 and P2 we can conclude that a necessary and possible being are mutually exclusive

Yes

P3) Lets define the whole as sum of necessary and possible things

If you are defining the ’ whole ’ as the set of things which exist, that would be true. But this
set would not be a sum, it would simply be two separate classes of beings which happen to exist at the present moment. And God is the only necessary being in this set. And since he is uncaused and therefore necessary, he has always existed. But this is not true of the ’ possible things, ’ which happen to exist at the moment and are part of the set, which currently exists.

C2) This means that there exist a boundary which separate necessary being from possible being

No boundary, no insurpassable wall.

What you are describing as a ’ boundary ’ is the ontological difference between caused beings and God, who is uncaused. As I pointed out the two are not part of one thing. The ’ possibles ’ exist in time, the ’ necessary ’ exists eternally. So it is clear that they are not part of one thing.
That would be a violation of the principle of contradiction.

C4) Such a boundary cannot possibly exist since we don’t have any other category which is nor necessary neither possible

You are right but not because there is no single category which would include both. The possible and the necessary are both ’ things. ’ The difference is that they exist in different orders of existence, one subject to time and the other is not subject to time. In other words, the things of time are all ’ possible things, ’ some of which always exist, but none of which exists always. The ’ necessary, ’ God, has always existed even when nothing else existed.

But God can and does operate in the world of time by causing it to exist and by keeping it in existence - so long as he chooses.

C5) This means that we could either have necessary being or possible being but not both in the whole

And I have just shown that this notion of yours is incorrect.

C5 can have different meaning depending on how do you define whole. Lets define whole as the sum of creation (possible) or God (necessary). God by definition is pure existence which means that he cannot exist and exist not. C5 means that if God exist then creation does exist not and vice versa. We however know that we do exist hence God cannot exist.

The premise is wrong. God, the necessary, and the world, the possibles, are not part of a whole, they are a mere logical set, consisting of two analogous types of beings or things, one caused and the other uncaused, one time bound and dependent, the other uncaused and eternal. So they can both exist at the same time. Only God is causing the other to exist, he is creating it…

C5 can also have another meaning. Lets consider the whole as what appears to consciousness as possible and the act of consciousness as necessary.

False assumption. There is no ground for this premise. as I have explained many times. First of all ’ consciousness ’ is not a thing which exists but the property of things which are intelligent. And intelligences, which are time bound, are necessarily contingent and limited, they are mere ’ possible intelligences. ’ And because of that, at one time they did not exist. Their existence can be accounted for only by an Intelligence which is eternal and uncaused, which is the cause of the ’ possible intelligences, ’ which are time bound, contingent, and limited.

The example of possibilities are, options when a decision is involved, thoughts, experience, etc. The example of necessaries are action, understanding, existence, etc. This means that what is experience in consciousness cannot coexist with the act of consciousness which is existence. This means that experience can only happen in absence of existence and existence can only happen in absence of experience.

Once again, you are mixing apples, pears, and oranges. The ’ possibles ’ include the set of all that is time bound, contingent, limited. The ’ necessary ’ is the set that is eternal, uncaused, and independent. And both can exist at the same moment and always have, as long as there have been ’ possibles. ’ But if there was a time when ’ possibles ’ never existed, then only the ’ necessary, ’ God, existed, because he is eternal and always exists. Pure existence cannot not exist. For if that were possible, nothing else would ever exist.

Linus2nd