Thomistic Argument

[Ghosty]

The Thomist point does not explain that. The Thomist point asserts this.

I don’t think there is any conclusive argument against an infinite regress and even if there is one, I don’t think the impossibility of an infinite regress is in any way cumbersome for the atheist.

This is incorrect. Aquinas does explain why an infinite regress is not possible in I Q2 A3 of the Summa Theologica. In a chain of cause and effects the final effect depends on the intermediate cause/effect, and the intermediate depends on the first cause. If you remove the first then you have no intermediate, and therefore no final effect.

Imagine it like a chain of clothing hangers suspended in the air. The bottom hanger is hanging from the one above it, and the one above it depends in the one above it, and so on. If there is no top hanger, and that top hanger is not hanging on something that is fixed, then none of the hangers can be suspended in the air. There must be a “first hanger” and a “hook” for the chain to be suspended; with no first cause there are no subsequent effects.

Peace and God bless!

 

[tdgesq]

It seems to me then, what Craig is doing is holding infinite sums to the same expectations he holds finite sums to. No wonder he thinks this is absurd. But, when you stand the argument on its head and say it’s that oddity which is a defining feature of infinity, it’s not that surprising.

I don’t believe this is an accurate characterization of Craig’s analysis. He explicitly compares different infinite sets and then draws ontological conclusions from those comparisons; conclusions that end up being absurd prima facie. He does the same thing with Cantorian set theory as follows:

[E]nvision] our solar system existing from eternity past, the orbital periods of the planets being so co-ordinated that for every one orbit which Saturn completes Jupiter completes 2.5 times as many. If they have been orbiting from eternity, we must say that they have completed precisely the same number of orbits. But this seems absurd, for the longer they revolve the greater becomes the disparity between them, as they progressively approach a limit at which Saturn has fallen infinitely far behind Jupiter with respect to orbits completed. Yet, being now actually infinite, their respective completed orbits are somehow magically identical.
. . .
[W]ill the number of completed orbits be even or odd? It must be one or the other, but either answer seems absurd. We might be tempted to deny that the number of completed orbits is either even or odd. But post-Cantorian transfinite arithmetic gives a quite different answer: the number of orbits completed is both even and odd! For a cardinal number n is even if there is a unique cardinal number m such that n = 2m, and n is odd if there is a unique cardinal number m such that n = 2m + 1. In the envisioned scenario the number of completed orbits is (in both cases!) ℵ0, and ℵ0 = 2ℵ0 = 2ℵ0 +1. So Jupiter and Saturn have each completed both an even and an odd number of orbits, and that number has remained equal and unchanged from all eternity, despite their ongoing revolutions and the growing disparity between them over any finite interval of time.

Craig’s argument here isn’t that Cantor’s set theory is wrong mathematically (he agrees with it), it is precisely that an actual infinite cannot exist because it leads to ontological absurdities like Hilbert’s Hotel and the example above. Combine this argument with our current observations of the universe and the most prevalent cosmological theory of our time (Big Bang), and it is difficult to imagine why one would accept a premise like “each member of a series may/must continuously be actualized by something in already in act” or “the universe is the product of an infinite series of efficient causes.” What arguments provide support for such a position?

I think Gale states what I was getting at. On B-theory, there is ontological parity between all temporal events (i.e., it’s not like time is actually moving from future to present to past). The only “series” of events on B-theory is our experience of time, but there is no such temporal progression in reality. So, Gale and I accuse this argument of depending on an anthropomorphic sense of ‘going through.’ We needn’t speak of sets, so Craig’s last remark is more of a quibble. But as you’ll note, Craig doesn’t actually dispute this, in fact he says “Of course not.”

I see. While I am aware that Craig is an A-theory proponent, I did not recognize the distinction as anything more than the acceptance or rejection of tensed propositions. If there is an ontological commitment here then it needs to be stated; presumably a four dimensional block. But then we have an issue similar to the above: what reasons are there for making this particular commitment?

 

[Sarpedon]

Aquinas does in fact indeed address the issue of infinite regress, particularly in the Summa Contra Gentiles. Aristotle points out that that cause and effect occur between ontological entities/bodies. An actuality reduces a potency to actuality, and thus metaphysical motion connects the two actualities.

Atheists tend to only think about causation as linear, across time. This is borne out by their fondness for number-line examples. Aquinas, however, mainly thinks about causation in a more fundamental way, aside from time. Aquinas does this in several different ways, i.e. the five ways.

The fundamental point is this- if an infinite regress of causes can exist in a single moment, then you have an infinite number of ontological entities in that moment. Causation occurs between ontological entities. If you have infinite causal chains, then you need to have infinite links in that chain. If on the other hand you have a finite number of ontological entities, then you will reach a point where you have a cause that is uncaused.

I think most atheists would be hesitant to accept that their are in fact infinite numbers of objects in the universe. The problem Aristotle identifies here is this- since motion is instantaneous (in the sense that something is in either binary category of potency or actuality at a given point), an infinite number of entities moving in the present moment would be like an infinite mobile, but that infinite mobile would have to exist under finite time. This is a rough sketch (Aquinas has two more main arguments I’m not going to write out), but Aquinas gives a very in depth treatment of the issue that so many atheists think is the trump card for his arguments. Gilson has an excellent treatment of this in his The Christian Philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas.

More generally, it’s very hard to demonstrate an infinite regress of actual things in reality. Infinite number lines and infinite linear point sets are cool, but there’s no requirement that any specific number actually exist as an object. It’s a concept, and its much easier to have infinite concepts (especially when the thought mechanism can be repeated) than infinite entities/bodies at a single time!

Aristotle and Aquinas are closely meshed, so I’m using them interchangeably here.

 

[benedictus2]

No it doesn’t depend on what I mean by motion. The God of A and A is un unmoverd mover, motionless in any sense of the word.

Unmoved does not mean non-moving or incapable of moving by itself. It simply means end of the line in a series of motions. Prime mover is - I think - a better term.

I don’t see any reason to think of an infinite regress as any more counterintuitive than e.g. a beginningless first cause.

Huh? Doesn’t the term first cause in itself means beginningless? If it is not beginningless then how can it be first cause?

And the reason I was talking about the non-existence of an infinite regress not being cumbersome for the atheists is because it is often stated by theists that it’s either God or an infinite regress. That’s simply false.

If it is false then please prove that infinite regress is logically reasonable and therefore negates the necessity for a Non-Contingent God.

 

[benedictus2]

That was the point of my argument: if something moves, then it is moved. But, I’ve retracted this argument due to issues with the definitions involved.

Reason prevails.

 

[belorg]

Then why do you favour it?

I don’t favour it. But has never been proven to be logically impossible.

Do you agree that it would be quite different from all other causes

I don’t know about that. It would be different, sure, but ‘quite’ different? I don’t think it would be completely different.

and pose problems for both scientists and philosophers because of its unique status?

It will no doubt pose problems. For one it would be very difficult to actually examine it. but every answers poses problems.

 

[belorg]

Unmoved does not mean non-moving or incapable of moving by itself. It simply means end of the line in a series of motions. Prime mover is - I think - a better term.

Again: under Thomism, unmoved does mean non-moving or incapable of moving.
One of the main problems discussing God with Christians (including Catholics) catholics is that there are so many radically different notions of what God is.

Yet, there is apparenetly only one truth. So, under Catholic doctrine, either you are a heretic or Thomists are heretics.

Huh? Doesn’t the term first cause in itself means beginningless? If it is not beginningless then how can it be first cause?

It can’t. But I have never claimed that a beginningless firdst cause is impossible, just that anything beginningless is counterintuitive.

If it is false then please prove that infinite regress is logically reasonable and therefore negates the necessity for a Non-Contingent God.

Firstly, I do not have to prove that an infinte regress is logically reasonable because I malk no claims about infinite regresses. I am just pointing out that, contrarily to what theists claim, there is no conclusive argument against IR.
But, as I also told Tony, I do not favour an infinite regress and I have no problem whatsoever accepting a first cause of some sort…

 

[belorg]

Aquinas does in fact indeed address the issue of infinite regress, particularly in the Summa Contra Gentiles. Aristotle points out that that cause and effect occur between ontological entities/bodies. An actuality reduces a potency to actuality, and thus metaphysical motion connects the two actualities.

Atheists tend to only think about causation as linear, across time. This is borne out by their fondness for number-line examples. Aquinas, however, mainly thinks about causation in a more fundamental way, aside from time. Aquinas does this in several different ways, i.e. the five ways.

The fundamental point is this- if an infinite regress of causes can exist in a single moment, then you have an infinite number of ontological entities in that moment. Causation occurs between ontological entities. If you have infinite causal chains, then you need to have infinite links in that chain. If on the other hand you have a finite number of ontological entities, then you will reach a point where you have a cause that is uncaused.

I think most atheists would be hesitant to accept that their are in fact infinite numbers of objects in the universe.

It is counterintuitive yes, but the question is: is it impossible that there are infinite mumbers of objects in the universe?

The problem Aristotle identifies here is this- since motion is instantaneous (in the sense that something is in either binary category of potency or actuality at a given point), an infinite number of entities moving in the present moment would be like an infinite mobile, but that infinite mobile would have to exist under finite time. This is a rough sketch (Aquinas has two more main arguments I’m not going to write out), but Aquinas gives a very in depth treatment of the issue that so many atheists think is the trump card for his arguments. Gilson has an excellent treatment of this in his The Christian Philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas.

More generally, it’s very hard to demonstrate an infinite regress of actual things in reality. Infinite number lines and infinite linear point sets are cool, but there’s no requirement that any specific number actually exist as an object. It’s a concept, and its much easier to have infinite concepts (especially when the thought mechanism can be repeated) than infinite entities/bodies at a single time!

Again, yes it is hard to demonstrate and it is counterintuitive. But where is the conclsuive argument that shows it is logically impossible?

 

[belorg]

So how do you account for degrees of being if not sourced from the uncaused being?

AFAIK there are no ‘degrees of being’.

 

[tonyrey]

I don’t favour it. But has never been proven to be logically impossible.

I don’t know about that. It would be different, sure, but ‘quite’ different? I don’t think it would be completely different.

It will no doubt pose problems. For one it would be very difficult to actually examine it. but every answers poses problems.

So everything is logically possible, nothing is more probable than anything else and your position is invulnerable but inconsistent with dogmatic atheism!

 

[benedictus2]

Again: under Thomism, unmoved does mean non-moving or incapable of moving.

Again, that only applies to the fact that God is outside of space and time. Motion means space and time. If God is Pure Acting Being then that implies a kind of “motion” though not quite the motion that we speak of which is both spatial and temporal.

One of the main problems discussing God with Christians (including Catholics) catholics is that there are so many radically different notions of what God is.

One of the main problems discussing God with atheists is they get so confused and can’t seem to understand that when we are discussing God with atheists, we limit it to the basic concept of Creator, First Cause, Prime Mover, Non-Contingent Reality, etc. Concepts that we hope an atheist can grasp. But then they start throwing the Bible at you when you haven’t even mentioned the Bible at all. Atheists it seems cannot stick to the arguments that theists use.

Yet, there is apparenetly only one truth. So, under Catholic doctrine, either you are a heretic or Thomists are heretics.

No only to an atheist who does not understand that God is not confined to space and time.

It can’t. But I have never claimed that a beginningless firdst cause is impossible, just that anything beginningless is counterintuitive.

And what is the relevance of this “counterintuitive” comment? And how is a beginningless first cause counterintuitive? If anything,it is totally elementary.

Firstly, I do not have to prove that an infinte regress is logically reasonable because I malk no claims about infinite regresses.

You said that Aquinas made only assertions. If you think that he was unable to prove its reasonableness then obviously you must be thinking it is unreasonable. Yet when pressed, you cannot provide reason for your position.

I am just pointing out that, contrarily to what theists claim, there is no conclusive argument against IR. But, as I also told Tony, I do not favour an infinite regress and I have no problem whatsoever accepting a first cause of some sort…

That’s good. Again, reason prevails.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

One of the main problems discussing God with atheists is they get so confused and can’t seem to understand that when we are discussing God with atheists, we limit it to the basic concept of Creator, First Cause, Prime Mover, Non-Contingent Reality, etc. Concepts that we hope an atheist can grasp. But then they start throwing the Bible at you when you haven’t even mentioned the Bible at all. Atheists it seems cannot stick to the arguments that theists use.

 

[Perplexity]

One of the main problems discussing God with atheists is they get so confused and can’t seem to understand that when we are discussing God with atheists, we limit it to the basic concept of Creator, First Cause, Prime Mover, Non-Contingent Reality, etc. Concepts that we hope an atheist can grasp. But then they start throwing the Bible at you when you haven’t even mentioned the Bible at all. Atheists it seems cannot stick to the arguments that theists use.

The most reasonable thing I can infer from this is that you haven’t spoken to many atheists lol. I don’t think these generalizations are very useful. (And I needn’t mention they’re just as often used in reverse about theists)

Might I ask whether you’ve studied atheistic arguments? Do the names Graham Oppy, Michael Martin, Quentin Smith, William Rowe, or J.L. Mackie sound familiar? If not, I’d recommend reading some of their material. You might be surprised. I know I was.

 

[belorg]

Again, that only applies to the fact that God is outside of space and time. Motion means space and time. If God is Pure Acting Being then that implies a kind of “motion” though not quite the motion that we speak of which is both spatial and temporal.

Just read some good book on or by Aquinas before you reply. You are not describing Aquinas’ God.

One of the main problems discussing God with atheists is they get so confused and can’t seem to understand that when we are discussing God with atheists, we limit it to the basic concept of Creator, First Cause, Prime Mover, Non-Contingent Reality, etc. Concepts that we hope an atheist can grasp. But then they start throwing the Bible at you when you haven’t even mentioned the Bible at all. Atheists it seems cannot stick to the arguments that theists use.

Where have I mentioned the Bible? I am speciafically talking about the First Cause / Prime Mover as understood by Thomas of Aquino.
Lots of people (athesits as well as theists) are not aware of what exactly Thomas measn by those terms. And, although I am not a specialist on every aspect of Thomism, I do know that when he says ‘unmoved’ he means incapable of moving. That’s a basic concept and it is a logical consequence of Pure Act.

No only to an atheist who does not understand that God is not confined to space and time.

Nobody is talking about space and time here.

And what is the relevance of this “counterintuitive” comment? And how is a beginningless first cause counterintuitive? If anything,it is totally elementary.

That does not mean it isn’t counterintuitive.

You said that Aquinas made only assertions. If you think that he was unable to prove its reasonableness then obviously you must be thinking it is unreasonable. Yet when pressed, you cannot provide reason for your position.

No, I don’t think that aspect of Aquinas’ view is unreasonable. I can understand why he thought that, and I am not claiming that an infinite regress is the somution to the problem of the cause of the universe, all I am claiming is that Aquinas has not proven that an IR is impossible.

That’s good. Again, reason prevails.

Most atheists are quite reasonable, in fact.

 

[Jaaanosik]

Jesus came into the world as a fully human being that just so happened to be God. The absolute contra-distinction in Him has been more and more stressed by the Church, these days. That He can incarnate a procession from Himself does not mean that He changes. Also remember that He told us that He didn’t change. A question: can you even imagine how an “infinite” being would “change?” He is One, Simple being that does not consist of parts, as we do. He is “outside” of Time and Change takes, or consumes, Time. He engulfs Time as He engulfs Space: wouldn’t He have to have someplace to change to or move to, e.g., a new place, if He were to change?

The procession from Himself we know as Christ is called a “hypostatic union,” and is described in the following link:
oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Hypostatic_Union

It is true that He did come into the world, which is understood by recognizing that Creation is not an instantaneous occurrence for us. For us, it is a roll-out, an un-folding. For God, though, it is instantaneous, because He exists in an infinite Now. We exist in a plethora of Nows.

God bless,
jd

Well,

In Christ one person subsists in two natures, the Divine and the human.

There is a simple question.
Where is the human nature of Jesus now?

 

[JDaniel]

Well,

There is a simple question.
Where is the human nature of Jesus now?

Jaaanosik:

It is part of human nature that we die. We are told, by our Church, that our souls are separated from our bodies, at those times, to be returned to our bodies at the End of the world. Christ, however, either never left His body or was immediately returned to his body, upon His death; that’s why we see Him resurrected without separation from it. So, His human nature is with the Father now.

Remember, based upon the human person being a hylemorphic duality, a spirit-body, we will spend Eternity as a spirit-body. The Son is thought to be a procession from the Thought of the Father, which is one of the two activities of Pure Spirituality, the other being Will.

These answers undoubtedly will bring more questions to your mind, but I will not presuppose them. Ask them, and we’ll do our best to give you straight answers.

God bless,
jd

 

[Ghosty]

Benedictus2: In Catholic teaching God is indeed “unmoving”. To move requires potency, and God is pure act. If God could move it would mean that there was something that God lacked, because motion is the reduction of potency to a missing actuality.

So when God is said to be an unmoved mover, it does indeed mean that there is no motion in God; not merely spatial and temporal, but also in any sense of potency to act (which is the definition of motion in Thomism).

Peace and God bless!

 

[tonyrey]

The most reasonable thing I can infer from this is that you haven’t spoken to many atheists lol. I don’t think these generalizations are very useful. (And I needn’t mention they’re just as often used in reverse about theists)

Might I ask whether you’ve studied atheistic arguments? Do the names Graham Oppy, Michael Martin, Quentin Smith, William Rowe, or J.L. Mackie sound familiar? If not, I’d recommend reading some of their material. You might be surprised. I know I was.

Please present an argument so that we have the opportunity to refute it!

 

[tonyrey]

Most atheists are quite reasonable, in fact.

If that is the case what reasons do you have for being an atheist rather than an agnostic?

 

[JDaniel]

Again, that only applies to the fact that God is outside of space and time. Motion means space and time. If God is Pure Acting Being then that implies a kind of “motion” though not quite the motion that we speak of which is both spatial and temporal.

Benedictus:

I’m not sure where you got the idea for the bolded words above, but that is not what is said by Aquinas or the Catholic. What was and is said is that, He is Pure Act. Period. In this case, act means pure instantiation, or pure being. In other words, not only does He exist, but also, He is existence itself. This is a concept that requires some training to understand. But, it does not mean, “acting,” which would imply motion of some sort.

God bless,
jd