Thoms's first way

[Bahman]

Argument:

The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

Objection: The existence of free will which by definition is the ability to make conscious decision shows that this argument is wrong since we are consciousness which is both mover and moved, yet being uncaused caused and we make our decision freely.

 

[Triflelfirt]

That wouldn’t serve as an objection to the First Way, because the proof would’ve still arrived at the existence of God, Pure Act, as the first mover, whether we have free will or not. Free will, therefore, is not a possible objection to the First way, because it doesn’t refute any of its premises.

However, you might say that the first mover could just be the soul (with free will), and therefore the first mover wouldn’t be pure act. However, that is also not possible, because the soul is in motion in the very moment it is actualizing the body, the brain’s functions, etc. Therefore the soul would also require a mover in an essentially ordered series. There’s also the problem with existential inertia; the soul, not being pure act, isn’t act in its essence, and therefore needs to be kept in act.

As for free will, it isn’t really disrespected in the First way, because the idea is that God isn’t determining our movement, but rather making it possible. God is making it possible for us to move; He moves what moves the soul (the object for which we have an appetite, for instance), moves what keeps our bodies in act (natural conditions, for example) without which our soul wouldn’t be able to know other things (as an incomplete substance), and keeps the soul in the act of existence, since the soul’s essence is distinct from its existence. If anything, you could say that there is an influence on our free will, but not a determination.

I’d suggest to you to read the following article by dr. David Oderberg: docs.google.com/file/d/0B7SKlRTfkUieN3dGVkhNTi1SQUU/edit?pli=1

In it, he deals with the question of free will in the first way, in a more clear way than I did, of course.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Argument:

The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

Objection: The existence of free will which by definition is the ability to make conscious decision shows that this argument is wrong since we are consciousness which is both mover and moved, yet being uncaused caused and we make our decision freely.

Aside from the fact that your arguments about free will and consciousness have been proven unsound, they have absolutely nothing to do with the argument presented in the First way.

Linus2nd

 

[Bahman]

That wouldn’t serve as an objection to the First Way, because the proof would’ve still arrived at the existence of God, Pure Act, as the first mover, whether we have free will or not. Free will, therefore, is not a possible objection to the First way, because it doesn’t refute any of its premises.

Well, lets proceed to see the contradiction.

However, you might say that the first mover could just be the soul (with free will), and therefore the first mover wouldn’t be pure act.

That is correct and I call that consciousness (your soul).

However, that is also not possible, because the soul is in motion in the very moment it is actualizing the body, the brain’s functions, etc.

How do you know? Consciousness is not subject to change but what it experiences is subject to change. It is like saying that I am not the same person I was yesterday otherwise. It is very you. It has many utilities which could be subject of change but very you doesn’t change.

Therefore the soul would also require a mover in an essentially ordered series. There’s also the problem with existential inertia; the soul, not being pure act, isn’t act in its essence, and therefore needs to be kept in act.

Soul/Consciousness does not need any mover. How your very you be subject of existential inertial? Have you ever think of the consequence of such of philosophical thinking. It has two consequences: A) God is not omnipotent and omniscient to create a being which can sustain itself, B) You are illusion since your being needs to be animated.

As for free will, it isn’t really disrespected in the First way, because the idea is that God isn’t determining our movement, but rather making it possible.

What do you mean to make it possible. You have to be uncaused cause in order to have control on your actions and thoughts.

God is making it possible for us to move; He moves what moves the soul (the object for which we have an appetite, for instance), moves what keeps our bodies in act (natural conditions, for example) without which our soul wouldn’t be able to know other things (as an incomplete substance), and keeps the soul in the act of existence, since the soul’s essence is distinct from its existence. If anything, you could say that there is an influence on our free will, but not a determination.

No. You sustain your body by eating, drinking and breathing. What is the purpose of all of the complexity in human body then?

I’d suggest to you to read the following article by dr. David Oderberg: docs.google.com/file/d/0B7SKlRTfkUieN3dGVkhNTi1SQUU/edit?pli=1

In it, he deals with the question of free will in the first way, in a more clear way than I did, of course.

Thanks for that. I will look at it if I find time.

 

[Bahman]

Aside from the fact that your arguments about free will and consciousness have been proven unsound, they have absolutely nothing to do with the argument presented in the First way.

Linus2nd

You are not offering an argument. Please read post #4.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

You are not offering an argument. Please read post #4.

I have offered argument here and on many other posts. But since you insist.

1. Consciousness is a property of the soul. You cannot arbitrarily equate the two.
2. We know because all the actions and functions of man are done for the benefit of the good of the whole man. This demands a central organizing source, this we call the soul.
   And of course consciousness, which is a property of the soul, is moved to self aware act by the actions of the soul, especially the intellect. But consciousness is not me, it is my awarness that I have of myself. And of course my self awareness does not change.
3. The soul is moved by everything the body and intellect experiences. Further it is moved to existence by the creative act of God and continues to exist by the act of God. It cannot account for its own existence, it does not cause itself to exist. So it does not sustain itself, God sustains its existence, as the agent cause must be in contact with that which it causes and moves. I am not an illusion, you have no logical reason for saying that.
4. God creates us to be free beings. I have explained that before. Consequently he does not control our thoughts or actions and you have no logical reason for saying so.
5. Yes we sustain ourselves by eating, drinking, resting, exercising, thinking, planning. But it is the soul which causes and coordinates all of man’s activities and thoughts for the benefit of the whole.
6. Well, we won’t hold our breath while you read Oderberg, or Feser, or Thomas Aquinas, or anyone else who would broaden your understanding - because you seem to be committed an ideology.

Linus2nd

 

[thinkandmull]

That wouldn’t serve as an objection to the First Way, because the proof would’ve still arrived at the existence of God, Pure Act, as the first mover, whether we have free will or not. Free will, therefore, is not a possible objection to the First way, because it doesn’t refute any of its premises.

However, you might say that the first mover could just be the soul (with free will), and therefore the first mover wouldn’t be pure act. However, that is also not possible, because the soul is in motion in the very moment it is actualizing the body, the brain’s functions, etc. Therefore the soul would also require a mover in an essentially ordered series. There’s also the problem with existential inertia; the soul, not being pure act, isn’t act in its essence, and therefore needs to be kept in act.

As for free will, it isn’t really disrespected in the First way, because the idea is that God isn’t determining our movement, but rather making it possible. God is making it possible for us to move; He moves what moves the soul (the object for which we have an appetite, for instance), moves what keeps our bodies in act (natural conditions, for example) without which our soul wouldn’t be able to know other things (as an incomplete substance), and keeps the soul in the act of existence, since the soul’s essence is distinct from its existence. If anything, you could say that there is an influence on our free will, but not a determination.

I’d suggest to you to read the following article by dr. David Oderberg: docs.google.com/file/d/0B7SKlRTfkUieN3dGVkhNTi1SQUU/edit?pli=1

In it, he deals with the question of free will in the first way, in a more clear way than I did, of course.

If we assume that the world is eternal, is your cosmological argument merely the contingent argument? You would have to explain why necessity is only for the simple things, and that this First Mover is Personal. Otherwise your argument is incomplete. I’ve also been wondering what proof can be given for that existence is actually a quality of existing things. If it is not, then things just are. There would be no need for an essential Existence

 

[Bahman]

I have offered argument here and on many other posts. But since you insist.

1. Consciousness is a property of the soul. You cannot arbitrarily equate the two.
2. We know because all the actions and functions of man are done for the benefit of the good of the whole man. This demands a central organizing source, this we call the soul.
   And of course consciousness, which is a property of the soul, is moved to self aware act by the actions of the soul, especially the intellect. But consciousness is not me, it is my awarness that I have of myself. And of course my self awareness does not change.
3. The soul is moved by everything the body and intellect experiences. Further it is moved to existence by the creative act of God and continues to exist by the act of God. It cannot account for its own existence, it does not cause itself to exist. So it does not sustain itself, God sustains its existence, as the agent cause must be in contact with that which it causes and moves. I am not an illusion, you have no logical reason for saying that.
4. God creates us to be free beings. I have explained that before. Consequently he does not control our thoughts or actions and you have no logical reason for saying so.
5. Yes we sustain ourselves by eating, drinking, resting, exercising, thinking, planning. But it is the soul which causes and coordinates all of man’s activities and thoughts for the benefit of the whole.
6. Well, we won’t hold our breath while you read Oderberg, or Feser, or Thomas Aquinas, or anyone else who would broaden your understanding - because you seem to be committed an ideology.

Linus2nd

I define X (consciousness fits well) as a primary thing with the ability to experience and affect mental states. I cannot anything else more fundamental that X. Do you agree with it?

 

[davidv]

I define X (consciousness fits well) as a primary thing with the ability to experience and affect mental states. I cannot anything else more fundamental that X. Do you agree with it?

No. The uncaused cause is the most fundamental.

 

[Bahman]

No. The uncaused cause is the most fundamental.

This is very definition of uncaused cause. How you could make free conscious decision then?

 

[davidv]

This is very definition of uncaused cause. How you could make free conscious decision then?

By choosing to decide.

 

[Bahman]

By choosing to decide.

And your decision has to be uncaused cause otherwise it is influenced by something else. Isn’t it?

 

[davidv]

And your decision has to be uncaused cause otherwise it is influenced by something else. Isn’t it?

I don’t have clue. What uncaused cause would that be?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I define X (consciousness fits well) as a primary thing with the ability to experience and affect mental states. I cannot anything else more fundamental that X. Do you agree with it?

If you will agree that consciousness is a property of the intellect which is a property of the soul that would be progress. Even the dictionary will explain that ’ consciousness ’ and ’ soul ’ are not the same.

Linus2nd

 

[Skeptic92]

I see the presupposition of the will priority over the intellect, and arguing that the will is not moved to its decision at the intellects command. Can we please have an argument for this libertarian conception of free will? It seems to be theologically problematic if applied to God.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I see the presupposition of the will priority over the intellect, and arguing that the will is not moved to its decision at the intellects command. Can we please have an argument for this libertarian conception of free will? It seems to be theologically problematic if applied to God.

It does not apply to God. For God, to know and to will are one act. Everything about God, all his attributes are reducible to his Existence. For God, to Exist is to know, will, to act, to be perfect, eternal, almighty, omniscient. omnipresent, omnipotent, etc. God, in essence, is utterly One and simple in nature. That is he has no physical or metaphysical parts, he is One.

Linus2nd

.

 

[Bahman]

I don’t have clue. What uncaused cause would that be?

Do you have free will? Yes. Is it influenced by internal or external factor? No. Hence you are uncaused cause. Why? You can make free conscious decision.

 

[Bahman]

If you will agree that consciousness is a property of the intellect which is a property of the soul that would be progress.

No, consciousness is not a property of intellect. We in fact experience by product of intellect. Hence, consciousness is primary and intellect is secondary.

It is this chain in order of hierarchy, consciousness, intellect, body.

Even the dictionary will explain that ’ consciousness ’ and ’ soul ’ are not the same.
Linus2nd

Why we bother about dictionary. I can define things which properly reflect my thought.

 

[Bahman]

I see the presupposition of the will priority over the intellect, and arguing that the will is not moved to its decision at the intellects command. Can we please have an argument for this libertarian conception of free will? It seems to be theologically problematic if applied to God.

I am currently working on an argument.

 

[Skeptic92]

It does not apply to God. For God, to know and to will are one act. Everything about God, all his attributes are reducible to his Existence. For God, to Exist is to know, will, to act, to be perfect, eternal, almighty, omniscient. omnipresent, omnipotent, etc. God, in essence, is utterly One and simple in nature. That is he has no physical or metaphysical parts, he is One.

Linus2nd

.

You can still have Divine Voluntarism (Ockham) vs Divine Intellectualism (Scotus & Aquinas). Divine Voluntarism is essentially libertarian free will applied to God; which is an absurdity as it makes the good a by product of Gods volition rather than Divine Wisdom.

Do you have free will? Yes. Is it influenced by internal or external factor? No. Hence you are uncaused cause. Why? You can make free conscious decision.

The will is moved to its decision by the intellect; thus the will is caused to move by the intellects command. Thus the will is not an uncaused cause.

No, consciousness is not a property of intellect. We in fact experience by product of intellect. Hence, consciousness is primary and intellect is secondary.

It is this chain in order of hierarchy, consciousness, intellect, body.

Why we bother about dictionary. I can define things which properly reflect my thought.

Consciousness is a byproduct of our sensitive nature; it reflects the fact we are aware of our surroundings in common with all sentient beings. If you mean by consciousness «self-consciousness» that is a byproduct of the intellect as the soul turns in on itself and knows itself; in this, the intellect is primary and consciousness is a property (proper accident).

I am currently working on an argument.

Good luck; Ockham already tried and his view was rejected by the Scholastic schools as contrary to the Catholic faith.