What do you consider proof of God, if anything?

[JDaniel]

Potency-in-act: potency in the process of becoming actual, i.e. motion. In English “potency to act” is less clear, it can be construed as just “potency.”

If a leaf attached to the branch of a tree is still attached to the tree, it remains in potency-to-fall-to-the-ground. Thus it certainly can be construed as “just in ‘potency’”. If the leaf falls off of the tree, the (local) motion is the action of falling to the ground, but, that can’t define motion as it begs the question: it contains (the) motion. So, you’d be saying motion is motion. However, at the end of the fall, the “act” is the leaf-on-the-ground.

Another example would be my right hand is about to sweep across the front of my body from my left side to my right. (You can already see this.) While it is suspended, without the motion, on my left, it is “just in potency”. When I effect the sweep, and the hand in on the right, it is now in act. One could replace the words, potency and act, with the words, on-the-left and on-the-right, at least in this simple demonstration.

The Aristotelian definition of motion is, that motion is not only the action that occurs between potency and act, it includes them both. It is the complete action. Why, because at any point within the sweep, my hand is still, in some sense, in potency towards act. Even at the very last slice of time touching the immediate outer “skin”, so to speak, of the final position that is act, the hand still possesses potency. One could say that potency and act may be regarded as each constituting a status or a ‘condition’ or ‘mode’; a being may be in actual status or in potential status…" (On the Power of God, Aquinas, q. 3, a. 8, reply 12.)

Aquinas derives one of three definitions of “motion” from Aristotle. In Aristotle’s words, “The fulfillment of what exists potentially in so far as it exists potentially, is motion.” (Physics, Bk. III, Ch. 1, 201-a, 10-12) While there may be “potency-in-act”, then, it is not the original potency. It would be a new potency, for once the potency, or lack, was filled, or fulfilled, that potency would be gone. It could no longer be potency qua potency, and there could exist no more of that potency in the fulfilled being, or thing. Once the leaf is on the ground, the potential for it fall to the ground is history. Now, someone could pick it up then drop it again, but, that would be a separate motion, another motion. Does that make sense?

Even if one construes it as some kind of motion or transition from potentia to acta, it falsely implies a chronological ordering of the two.

But there is a “chronology”, to use your word, in the sense that what we are defining is “motion”, not “mobile being”, at this point. We are not yet trying to define the substrate, or subject, of motion, we are trying to define “pure motion”.

In English, “in” does not carry this same trouble – if understood incorrectly, it only implies containment, which is clearly not what is intended. Understood correctly, it has a similar sense as “caught in the act” or “in flight” or something similar – an instantaneous description of an uncompleted action.

If we were trying to define the status of the subject at a point on the continuum, you would be correct. But we are not; we are trying to define the process, the (finite) continuum.

Insofar as they are descriptive and explanatory of experienced phenomena, of course they are relevant and useful. But there is no need to reify them in order to use them.

No one is “reifying” the words. But, don’t try to take them away from us either. In fact, if anything, I (Aquinas and Aristotle, too) am striving to make the words LESS abstract. If I were in pain and science were to define pain as the firing of certain neurons, and upon going to the doctor, I was told that I can’t be in pain because those neurons aren’t firing, you and I would, without much hesitation, say, “I don’t care about any neurons. If anyone knows if I am suffering pain, it is I. And if you make it impossible for me to express my pain in an articulate way by taking the word away from me through your various definitions, then I will simply have to express it by screaming.” (Rationality and Faith in God, from a lecture by R. Spaemann, 12/06/04, at the Hochschule fur Philosophie in Munich)

. . . more to follow.

jd

 

[JDaniel]

It is also interesting that the languages of the world have the noun, “nothing”, in them and use it in the manner of, “ex nihilo nihil fit” with great regularity, and have done so for some 2,500 years, give or take.

Sorry, I meant, “in philosophy”. The concept of "nothingness’ has been a fairly perennial concept for philosophic discussions. Especially for the existentialists.

True.

Thanks.

Why does this follow? (We haven’t yet “arrived,” by the way, unless you found a way to freeze time while writing that.)

There would be no “stopping point”. That would be a bound; or, boundary for all that was before. No matter where we tried to stop, more time would continually be added so that we could never get to the “now”. We are speaking of an infinite regress here. There is no way to reconcile the fallacy of a “stopping point” occurring, at least on an “actual” infinity. The moment you posit a stopping point, you define a potential infinity.

If we, simplistically and conceptually, view an actual infinity as a circle that we continuously trace the perimeter of, how does one “jump in”? If we are in it, how does one “jump out”? Every “beginning” would remain a “beginning”. There could be no “beginning and end”. This would surely have to be the Matrix. Yikes!

jd

 

[1holycatholic]

I don’t follow your bit about Leelaism. I was quoting Aquinas.

With much, if not all of Aquinas’ writings online it’s odd that the only place that quote that you attribute to him only appears on your own blog (and now CAF).

So the difference between a potential infinity and an actual infinity is that an actual infinity exists? I think I see the game. Whatever examples of infinities I give you will simply say that they don’t actually exist.

Of course I could list several examples of paths from one point to another, and of couorse I could not list all of them without taking an infinite amount of time.

It’s not a game. Actual infinities are impossible.

 

[JDaniel]

Hi David,

Right. I think the chain metaphor for causality is also problematic. When we look for causes, we don’t see a single chain of causes and we don’t see any norrowing down to a smaller and smaller set of causes to a single first cause. What we see is an ever expanding web of causes extending into the unknown past

Not so, Leela. What we “see is an ever expanding web of causes extending into the unknown future.” A regress does not expand in arrears. It extends in arrears. Two completely different words. Once you, Leela, comprehend what you are talking about, it makes understanding a concept so much easier.

However, please remember, that if you posit a “chain of causes” you have incorrectly characterized the Aristotelian/Thomistic meaning. Neither says, or infers, that each effect becomes itself a cause. Here again, comprehension might beget understanding.

jd

 

[PJM]

=KantianAgnostic;5261854]I do not think any sort of observation that could be made, even if it were repeatable, would be sufficient to convince me that God exists.

No amount of evidence, no matter how solid nor how much, would be sufficient to warrant something which would be a universal metaphysical certainty.

Now, it may be possible, within my view, to come up with an argument for God as something (someone) that must be accepted in order to make sense of the world, or of certain parts of the world, as we perceive it, but all that amounts to is the necessity of accepting God for the sake of understanding or accepting consistently something else.

Though I suspect even this is not possible, if such an argument were made, even if it were flawless, this would only establish the importance of accepting God as a formal truth within the mind, for the sake of understanding what we see and consider; it would not be sufficient at all to establish that such a being actually existed apart from the mind.

**Friend, you’re freewill chosen obstenance is yet another proof that God is Good.

Sadly, unless you change you’re mind, you will at the point of death, also discover that withib God’s necessary “goodness” which must, absolutely must include Fairness and Justice.

You see friend as I have evidenced in previous post, you’re Spiritual Gifts are from the God you deny, and it is you and me who send ourselves in just obedience to hell or heaven.

You would do well to wake up and "smell the roses of TRUTH friend!**

Love and prayers.

Patrick

 

[Leela]

Actual infinities are impossible.

For some reason you seem to think that saying so makes it so.

 

[1holycatholic]

Aquinas taught you well. “Whenever you meet a contradiction ,make a distinction.”

That quote is from William James ca 1909.

See how easy it is to come up with a self-consistent philosophy or religion? That;'s why they are a dime a dozen.

Your philosophy and religion are not self-consistent. :coffeeread:

It’s really tiresome responding to cut-and-paste atheism. Learn about what you are posting before you post. There were philosophers before Descartes. It would help if you were knowledgeable about their work.

 

[1holycatholic]

For some reason you seem to think that saying so makes it so.

The world eagerly awaits your demonstration of an existent actual infinity.

 

[JDaniel]

I just caught this and am curious:

I understand that the Church teaches that the existence of God can be demonstrated through reason alone, but is there any teaching that this reason must be found in the scholastic arguments, or that the arguments of the scholastics indeed satisfy this requirement?

It seems to me that William James’s ideas have far more insight, relevance and staying power than Aquinas. I guess the only way to be sure would be to check back in 700 years, though.

DH, good point. Umm, I guess, the only way I can answer that is to admit that the Church has sort of aligned itself with scholasticism because Aquinas did so much to provide a consistent documentary of Church Theology. And, he did it by applying philosophy to it in those places where it was thought to be necessary.

For the Church, God has one “mode”, or “condition” of being for us: He is the Personal God of our Faith. The Catholic, and, perhaps on some lesser scale, the Protestants, have faith that when we encounter nature and the universe, that we somehow “see” a “creator/designer”. Not necessarily in an “ID” way, but rather, in a formal and final cause way. Does that make any sense?

I have not read very much William James recently. It has been a number of years for me. Can you recommend something that would be good from him. I know that I used to like him a lot.

jd

 

[JDaniel]

hahahahaha… this actually made me laugh out loud
I tell you what, when you show that pi or e have repeating patterns, I will post the infinity of paths here on this forum.

NO! You first! :extrahappy:

jd

 

[1holycatholic]

DH, good point. Umm, I guess, the only way I can answer that is to admit that the Church has sort of aligned itself with scholasticism because Aquinas did so much to provide a consistent documentary of Church Theology. And, he did it by applying philosophy to it in those places where it was thought to be necessary.

The Church does not have an official philosophy.
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_15101998_fides-et-ratio_en.html

 

[Leela]

The world eagerly awaits your demonstration of an existent actual infinity.

I’ve already given several examples. Here are some more: there are an infinite number of directions that a compass can point to. There are an infinite number of real numbers between 1 and 2.

1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + …= 2. In mathematics this statement is not potentially true. It is actually true.

But whether or not I can think of any examples is really beside the point. One example would disprove your claim, but the lack of any available examples still doesn’t constitute a logical proof of your claim. You haven’t made a single argument for why such actual infinities CANNOT exist. You’ve just asked to be disproved and deny any examples I give as disproof. You can say, “no, no, no” as many times as you want to every example that anyone ever offers and still have no logical argument that your claim is true. All you can say is that it hasn’t been disproved YET.

 

[1holycatholic]

I’ve already given several examples. Here are some more: there are an infinite number of directions that a compass can point to. There are an infinite number of real numbers between 1 and 2.

1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + …= 2. In mathematics this statement is not potentially true. It is actually true.

But whether or not I can think of any examples is really beside the point. One example would disprove your claim, but the lack of any available examples still doesn’t constitute a logical proof of your claim. You haven’t made a single argument for why such actual infinities CANNOT exist. You’ve just asked to be disproved and deny any examples I give as disproof. You can say, “no, no, no” as many times as you want to every example that anyone ever offers and still have no logical argument that your claim is true. All you can say is that it hasn’t been disproved YET.

You’ve only provided examples of potential infinities. You can’t provide an example of an actual infinite. By definition an actual infinite cannot exist.

 

[JDaniel]

And this is an excellent beginning for an argument for God being necessary for the sake of human reason.

Though maybe there are many things that are not contingent and not caused, or maybe things that are contingent, and still uncaused (they may simply pop into existence for no reason).

Here’s the problem with that reasoning: like what, for instance? Scientists have postulated “virtual particles”. And, some not-so-bright people would love to infer that that describes a coming-to-be of new matter. What they fail to remember is that part of the name contains the word, “virtual”. And, real scientists don’t regard it as “real” matter. What they are trying to define is an effect that seems to flow from something “real”. But, that will remain a mystery of virtuality.

The only other possibility that is brought up is from radioactive decay. But, that argument ignores that a radioactive isotope consists of a material that is very unstable. Like boiling water, why does one molecule leave the water and others do not? Thus, instability provides the answer to why certain atoms randomly decay.

Oh, and don’t forget the Laws of Conservation. Matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed.

Human reason may not be able to handle this, but that is not sufficient, at least for me, to accept that because human reason seems to require something, it must be the case in reality.

What it boils down to is that there are NO things that “pop into existence”. Furthermore, there are NO things that are not the effects of a “cause”, even if the effect is the end-of-the-line. Can you think of any?

There are other problems I have with this argument.

Explain, please.

jd

 

[Leela]

You’ve only provided examples of potential infinities. You can’t provide an example of an actual infinite. By definition an actual infinite cannot exist.

By definition? Are you kidding me? This is your logical proof that infinities cannot exist?

I suppose that by definition “the thing that made the things for which there is no known maker” created the universe, but I can’t see how it could be part of any logical argument. You just keep insisting the infinities don’t exist as if you can will it to be true. Now you want it to be true by definition. Ok, you win. You’ve made your argument impervious to reason by refusing to make any argument at all. But why not just say that God exists by definition?

 

[JDaniel]

This is not quite the case, as the existence of the physical world IS necessarily supposed for the sake of our understanding (though the term ‘physical’ can become muddled).

You seem to be purposely combining, and, thus, confusing, purpose between scientistic purposefulness and theological/metiphysical purposefulness.

This is a potential pitfall: maybe this world is an illusion; maybe my reasoning is such that it simply is impossible to live otherwise. In that sense, and properly, philosophically, I would be skeptical about the existence of other people.

However, the existence of other persons (other free wills, like my own) is developed, though through this a posteriori discovery, by analogy to my own being in myself, thus establishing logically the beings in themselves, to the point where I would have to abandon reason altogether in order to reject the existence of other free wills.

But, you can do the exact same thing with physical nature. You, as a person, with attributes, exist, therefore other people, with attributes, also exist. Ergo, you physically exist, therefore, nature physically exists. Otherwise, you are being unreasonably selective.

Not even close. Even if I were skeptical about the existence of other minds (which I am not), this would only amount to a sort of radical skepticism which would allow for the possibility of solipsism, but would not involve actively stating or holding to that my mind is the only mind.

However, did the universe, and the natural world, exist prior to anyone being alive to apprehend it?

jd

 

[JDaniel]

I’m not denying existence; I’d be denying cause… and I do agree, it is possible that nothing as it is in itself is caused, but that everything pops into and out of existence, and that we draw conclusions based on our own systems of space and time, conclusions that allow for understanding of the world, but may not be essential to things in themselves.

Well, if it was this way, I would stop making any plans. There would be nothing I could count on EXCEPT my own mind. But, of course, even my plans could be illusory.

It would probably be best not to involve others in your plot , especially a love interest. I mean, how fair would that be?

jd

 

[JDaniel]

Thank you for taking the time to make this distinction. I think that by explicitly setting aside temporal causation, you have made the metaphysical commitments involved more clear.

I don’t think your analogy is very good, because there is no simultaneity involved in the box-pushing situation you described. There is certainly a temporal ordering of the various movements involved in transmitting the motion from one box to the next. Is there some other analogy that might be better – an efficient cause that is not related to motion?

If I might, I can supply you with one: Say, a house is to be built. Material cause consists of the lumber, nails, cement, accouterments, etc. Efficient cause, would be the person, the general contractor, for example, and his builders (as secondary efficient causes). Formal cause is the blueprint and the original conception of the finished product. And, Final cause would be the reason the house was about to be built.

In this case, the GC and, to a lesser extent, his workers, is/are the efficient cause(s). There is no relationship with motion, except tangentially.

jd

 

[JDaniel]

Of course, but you need not have to do that. I’ve already seen it, which is why I define God the way I do and related it to Love rather than other less positive ideas. However, lets not confuse my definition of “God” with the biblical God, if that’s where you were going.

Do you see them as different? If so, why?

jd

 

[MindOverMatter]

However, did the universe, and the natural world, exist prior to anyone being alive to apprehend it?
jd

I hope you don’t mind, but i like butting in to peoples conversations, and i have decided to challenge your brain or your micro processor, depending on whether or not you are a robot in disguise…

As for your question I’d would like to say that one would be logically justified in thinking that their was such a thing as “objective being” before one existed, and one would be justified in thinking that there was such a thing as change and thus causality. However, i do not think that one is justified in giving objectivity to the perceived universe outside of some kind of epistemological justification in respect of necessity. Don’t get me wrong. I believe that my sense impressions are objectively real; but this is an intuitive/induction based on probability, rather then a strictly logical demonstration of necessity. My sense impressions are probably real. I just don’t see anyway of proving that it is necessarily real. Personally, i don’t know how to prove that the universe exists. In fact, i believe that Gods existence is more knowable then the existence of the physical universe.

Perhaps I’m wrong, in which case i will be bracing myself for the humbling impact of your intellect.

peace.