What is the Most Convincing Argument for God?

[Partinobodycula]

Rather, Aquinas is dealing with change in general.

I do understand this subtlety. If at times my answers give the impression that I don’t, it’s no doubt due to my inability to clearly articulate my arguments. Feel free to point out any errors, but remember, I ain’t perfect. I make mistakes.

Potency cannot actualise itself; it cannot bring itself to act because it is nothing without act.

Or to bring it down to my ninth grade level, nothing can move itself. Because in order to move, it must change from a state of potentiality, to a state of actuality. And the only thing that can move it from a state of potentiality, to a state of actuality is something which is itself in a state of actuality. Therefore, nothing can move itself, or can it?

Aquinas would argue that something cannot be in more than one state, toward the same respect, at the same time. For example, something cannot be both hot and cold. It must be in actuality toward one, and potentiality toward the other. But it can’t be both. Quantum mechanics however, says that it can. A particle can be both spin up, and spin down, at the same time. It can be at point “A” and at point “B” at the same time. So if a particle can be in two opposing states at the same time, can it be in both a state of actuality, and a state of potentiality, at the same time? And if it can, can it move itself?

Not something that Aquinas would’ve considered. But an interesting conundrum. Can a particle move itself?

 

[Partinobodycula]

Actually, that we do not know how a particular change occurs does not mean that there is no “how” or “why”. We intuit that the universe is rational and therefore look for causes.

However, we may not be capable of understanding some things beyond a certain level, and have to accept them as unknowable mysteries.

I would say there must be a cause for everything because nothing knowable can exist in isolation.

If there is a change, something has happened in the transition from one state to another.

One listens to a collection of individual sounds appearing to have no linear temporal relationship between them. One begins to understand the connection between them, the cause of the particular beautiful noise as one comes to appreciate the symphony being played.

This is not a physics forum and I am not prepared to discuss the matter in the depth it deserves, but to my mind, radioactive decay has to do with the properties of the subatomic particles involved and the forces that govern them. The problem lies with our knowledge base and the error involved in measuring such process, if measureable at all.

Nuclear decay may appear random and uncaused. But, It may perhaps be understood to be like a roll of the dice. What is the cause of the number seven? In other words, both reflect an underlying order, although we cannot attribute anything more specific as having caused the particular result. This does not mean that the number rolled is uncaused.

Hey, I’m a solispsist, not being sure of things is what I do. Generally, when I debate things, it’s not to prove that I’m right, it’s to get you to question whether you’re right. It’s to get you to think. That’s what I really want, I want you to think.

 

[e_c]

Aquinas would argue that something cannot be in more than one state, toward the same respect, at the same time. For example, something cannot be both hot and cold. It must be in actuality toward one, and potentiality toward the other. But it can’t be both. Quantum mechanics however, says that it can. A particle can be both spin up, and spin down, at the same time. It can be at point “A” and at point “B” at the same time. So if a particle can be in two opposing states at the same time, can it be in both a state of actuality, and a state of potentiality, at the same time? And if it can, can it move itself?

You mean the principle of noncontradiction? I think that one’s safe… Come on. (Or else we really have defenestrated the possibility of knowledge.)

This example reminds me of that infamous Hawking quote about gravity and creation.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . That’s what I really want, I want you to think.

Having been, if I am to apply a label to myself, a sort of a Zen Buddhist for quite a number of decades, I can tell you that, my intention, even still, would be the exact opposite.
As corny and paradoxical as it may sound, once a person stops thinking and just is, everything starts to really make sense. Of course I am talking about existence, who we are.
We are ourselves; and that totality, with its connection to the Divine has to be realized.
Maybe that’s what you too are wanting to do - an intellectual version of spin-up and spin-down at the same time.
I must add that in all this searching business, the most important thing to know is that love is the key that opens the door to the truth.
All one has otherwise are a bunch of ideas with a flavoring of spiritual pride. As it turns out, one stroke and they’re no longer in one’s grasp; all gone.
It is the pure of heart who see God.

 

[IWantGod]

I do understand this subtlety. If at times my answers give the impression that I don’t, it’s no doubt due to my inability to clearly articulate my arguments. Feel free to point out any errors, but remember, I ain’t perfect. I make mistakes.

Or to bring it down to my ninth grade level, nothing can move itself. Because in order to move, it must change from a state of potentiality, to a state of actuality. And the only thing that can move it from a state of potentiality, to a state of actuality is something which is itself in a state of actuality. Therefore, nothing can move itself, or can it?

Aquinas would argue that something cannot be in more than one state, toward the same respect, at the same time. For example, something cannot be both hot and cold. It must be in actuality toward one, and potentiality toward the other. But it can’t be both. Quantum mechanics however, says that it can. A particle can be both spin up, and spin down, at the same time. It can be at point “A” and at point “B” at the same time. So if a particle can be in two opposing states at the same time, can it be in both a state of actuality, and a state of potentiality, at the same time? And if it can, can it move itself?

Not something that Aquinas would’ve considered. But an interesting conundrum. Can a particle move itself?

What is a state of potentiality ontologically speaking? A thing may very well be at point b and a at the same time, but the fact remains that potentiality requires the existence of an act in-order to become actual. Change is still a reduction of potency to act. And any being that is essentially “actualised-potential” cannot ontologically speaking be considered the cause of its own existence since out of nothing nothing comes. In order for anything to exist at all there has to be an absolute antithesis of nothing, a pure-actuality, an ultimate act of reality that is neither actualised potential or as you hypothesize “both a state of actuality, and a state of potentiality, at the same time.”

A thing cannot exist and not exist at the same time. Quantum physics does not negate this fact. Quantum physics suggests that given the nature of things at a quantum level, a thing can be in several “existing” states at once, and there are several scientific theories as to why this is the case. But this is not the same thing as saying that a square triangle can exist.

 

[Partinobodycula]

What is a state of potentiality ontologically speaking? A thing may very well be at point b and a at the same time, but the fact remains that potentiality requires the existence of an act in-order to become actual. Change is still a reduction of potency to act.

So Aquinas is asserting that all change is the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. And only something in actuality in a given respect, can affect that change. In other words, for something to be in motion, it must have been put in motion by something which was itself in motion. Inherent in this argument is the idea that the thing being reduced from potentiality to actuality, cannot possess a gradation in that given respect greater than the thing that affected that reduction. In other words, the thing put in motion can’t move faster than the thing that put it in motion.

Is this the basic gist of the argument? Because if it is, then we have a problem.

The problem is, that if we go back a billion years, before there were humans, or intelligence, where did these things come from? If nothing can possess a gradation greater than the thing that affects that gradation, then where did our intelligence come from? If we go back even further, to five billion years ago, to before there were living things, where did life come from?

Now you might argue that these things come from God who is the maximum in all respects, but the argument as presented, renders this impossible. Because the argument says that nothing can have a gradation in a given respect, greater than the thing that directly affected that gradation. Nothing can move faster than the thing that moved it.

So where did life come from? Where did we come from?

 

[IWantGod]

So Aquinas is asserting that all change is the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. And only something in actuality in a given respect, can affect that change. In other words, for something to be in motion, it must have been put in motion by something which was itself in motion. Inherent in this argument is the idea that the thing being reduced from potentiality to actuality, cannot possess a gradation in that given respect greater than the thing that affected that reduction. In other words, the thing put in motion can’t move faster than the thing that put it in motion.

Is this the basic gist of the argument? Because if it is, then we have a problem.

No. Potentiality or potency cannot actualise itself. That’s the gist of the argument.

The problem is, that if we go back a billion years, before there were humans, or intelligence, where did these things come from? If nothing can possess a gradation greater than the thing that affects that gradation, then where did our intelligence come from? If we go back even further, to five billion years ago, to before there were living things, where did life come from?

Everything thing exists according to the power of the first cause.

Now you might argue that these things come from God who is the maximum in all respects, but the argument as presented, renders this impossible. Because the argument says that nothing can have a gradation in a given respect, greater than the thing that directly affected that gradation. Nothing can move faster than the thing that moved it.

No. Nothing that changes can be the existential cause itself. The power that I have is not according to my power. I am not the giver of my power. Neither is the atoms of which I am comprised the giver of their own power. Why, because things that change are in a continuous process of being actualised and since potency cannot actualise itself they are not the reason for their existence or power.

So where did life come from? Where did we come from?

The absolute antithesis of nothing.

 

[Partinobodycula]

No. Potentiality or potency cannot actualise itself. That’s the gist of the argument.

Isn’t that what I just said? Please read it again.

Everything thing exists according to the power of the first cause.

But nothing can possess a gradation in any given respect greater than the thing that directly precedes it in order. Isn’t that correct? Nothing can move faster than the thing which moves it.

No. Nothing that changes can be the existential cause itself. The power that I have is not according to my power. I am not the giver of my power. Neither is the atoms of which I am comprised the giver of their own power. Why, because things that change are in a continuous process of being actualised and since potency cannot actualise itself they are not the reason for their existence or power.

That’s not the argument that I’m making here. The argument that I’m making here is that nothing can ever be greater in any respect than the thing that directly precedes it in order. Thus intelligence can’t be the product of something which isn’t itself intelligent. And life can’t be the product of something that isn’t alive.

Therefore, where did these things come from?

The absolute antithesis of nothing.

But Aquinas says that even if they ultimately come from God, they must come by way of that which directly precedes a thing in order, and not to a greater degree than that which precedes it in order. Thus something can’t be intelligent if the thing directly preceding it in order isn’t intelligent. And something can’t be alive unless the thing directly preceding it in order is alive.

So in the chain of order, where did the first intelligent thing come from? Where did the first living thing come from?

 

[e_c]

So Aquinas is asserting that all change is the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. And only something in actuality in a given respect, can affect that change. In other words, for something to be in motion, it must have been put in motion by something which was itself in motion. Inherent in this argument is the idea that the thing being reduced from potentiality to actuality, cannot possess a gradation in that given respect greater than the thing that affected that reduction. In other words, the thing put in motion can’t move faster than the thing that put it in motion.

Is this the basic gist of the argument? Because if it is, then we have a problem.

The problem is, that if we go back a billion years, before there were humans, or intelligence, where did these things come from? If nothing can possess a gradation greater than the thing that affects that gradation, then where did our intelligence come from? If we go back even further, to five billion years ago, to before there were living things, where did life come from?

Now you might argue that these things come from God who is the maximum in all respects, but the argument as presented, renders this impossible. Because the argument says that nothing can have a gradation in a given respect, greater than the thing that directly affected that gradation. Nothing can move faster than the thing that moved it.

So where did life come from? Where did we come from?

What is in motion must be put in motion by “another,” is how I remember the axiom… Not by something else in motion. That’s rather important, since God is immobile.

Regarding the cause of life, well, we ought to return to the basics of form and matter before getting into all that…

Maybe give the “Thomistic theses” a read. That might help clear some difficulties for you.

 

[Partinobodycula]

What is in motion must be put in motion by “another,” is how I remember the axiom… Not by something else in motion. That’s rather important, since God is immobile.

You’re correct, “another” is the term used, but in this case I don’t really think that it’s all that important. I don’t plan to bring up the immobility of God. In this case motion is essentially used as a metaphor for change, and hopefully everyone will recognize it as such.

As for whether it’s relative to this argument, I don’t believe that it is, it’s apparent from Aquinas’ arguments that something can only be changed from potentiality to actuality by something which is itself in actuality in the same respect. So the basis of my argument isn’t about motion per se, but about the fact that something can only be changed by something which is in actuality in the same respect.

Regarding the cause of life, well, we ought to return to the basics of form and matter before getting into all that…

Maybe give the “Thomistic theses” a read. That might help clear some difficulties for you.

I’m not really big on reading. (That’s probably obvious) But if you can point out the fault in my reasoning I’ll definitely be incentivized to look into the matter further.

There’s nothing like a good debate to stoke my curiosity.

 

[IWantGod]

Nothing can move faster than the thing which moves it.

That is not what Aquinas meant.

That’s not the argument that I’m making here. The argument that I’m making here is that nothing can ever be greater in gradation than the thing that directly precedes it in order.

It depends on the context in which you use the term gradation.

But Aquinas says that even if they ultimately come from God, they must come by way of that which directly precedes a thing in order, and not to a greater degree than that which precedes it in order. Thus something can’t be intelligence if the thing directly preceding it in order isn’t intelligent. And something can’t be alive unless the thing directly preceding it in order is alive.

That is incorrect. That is not what is being argued, although I can understand why you would make that mistake.

Aquinas is speaking of being as being.

It is certainly true that intelligence cannot arise from non-intelligence. But it doesn’t follow that the power of intelligence cannot emerge in conjunction with non-intelligent attributes.

Non-intelligence is not an efficient cause of intelligence because you cannot get more from less. You cannot get something from nothing, but that doesn’t mean that a physical substance cannot precede the actualisation of an intellect; it just cannot be the efficient cause of the intellect because a non-intelligent substance does not have the power of intellect in it.

For example, an oak tree can arise from a tiny seed because it has that power in its being or actual nature, but the oak tree cannot be born of that seed without that power being present within the seed. In this sense, ontologically speaking you cannot get more from less. I cannot give birth to a dolphin because my nature does not have that power; I am not a female and I am not a dolphin (you cannot get greater from less). A seed can give rise to an oak tree because the seed has inherited that power. But that power has been given to it precisely because the seed is actualised potency. Being has been given to it.

He is speaking more like in the sense of a things authority, its power according to its nature.

Also this does not mean that natures cannot give rise to different natures, its just means that if a nature does give rise to a different nature it is because some aspect of its nature has the power to do so.

 

[Partinobodycula]

It is certainly true that intelligence cannot arise from non-intelligence. But it doesn’t follow that the power of intelligence cannot emerge in conjunction with non-intelligent attributes.

Non-intelligence is not an efficient cause of intelligence because you cannot get more from less. You cannot get something from nothing, but that doesn’t mean that a physical substance cannot precede the actualisation of an intellect; it just cannot be the efficient cause of the intellect because a non-intelligent substance does not have the power of intellect in it.

For example, an oak tree can arise from a tiny seed because it has that power in its being or actual nature, but the oak tree cannot be born of that seed without that power being present within the seed. In this sense, ontologically speaking you cannot get more from less. I cannot give birth to a dolphin because my nature does not have that power; I am not a female and I am not a dolphin (you cannot get greater from less). A seed can give rise to an oak tree because the seed has inherited that power. But that power has been given to it precisely because the seed is actualised potency. Being has been given to it.

It’s easy to see how a seed can inherit the power to give rise to an oak tree. But how does a rock for example, inherit the power to give rise to an oak tree? This may seem like a silly question, but at some point in the past the inanimate must have given rise to the animate. A rock (metaphorically speaking) must have given rise to life. If you’re correct, it’s because it had within its nature the power to give rise to life.

He is speaking more like in the sense of a things authority, its power according to its nature.

Also this does not mean that natures cannot give rise to different natures, its just means that if a nature does give rise to a different nature it is because some aspect of its nature has the power to do so.

This would appear to be an argument for evolution. Attributes can arise where they didn’t previously exist, so long as the precursors for…(Power to give rise to)…those attributes exist. These attributes then become precursors themselves, which become attributes, which become precursors…

This would seem to suggest that the efficient cause need not be the maximum in all things, but rather the minimum in all things. Because all that it has to do is to get the ball rolling, so to speak, and evolution will take care of the rest. Attribute giving rise to attribute, ad infinitum.

 

[HelenRose]

My personal relationship with Christ, but that probably convinces no one but me.

This is where I begin.

But, this is the peg I can hold my hat on:

“The fact that the Universe is really so fine tuned. If dozens and dozens of many things didn’t happen, were marginally or were even a smidgen to the right or left or in any way different, we wouldn’t be here. When you see figures like 1 in 10 to the power of 37 or 120 or even more to articulate facts that if our universe were in any way different we wouldn’t be here and from secular sources without any credible refutation, you really see that there is a God.”

As stated by StBenedictLabre in a previous post

 

[IWantGod]

It’s easy to see how a seed can inherit the power to give rise to an oak tree. But how does a rock for example, inherit the power to give rise to an oak tree? This may seem like a silly question, but at some point in the past the inanimate must have given rise to the animate. A rock (metaphorically speaking) must have given rise to life. If you’re correct, it’s because it had within its nature the power to give rise to life.

This is a scientific question. Aquinas merely touches on the fact that these things have powers in general and since natures change in some respect or other and in relation to one another the question arises as to what is actualising the potency and powers of these natures. What is the ultimate and efficient cause of change in general (change being a reduction of potency to act)? Science does not deal with change in general or the distribution of natural powers in general, but rather it asks very particular question such as what process is involved that transforms an inanimate object into what we regard to be an animate object.

This would appear to be an argument for evolution. Attributes can arise where they didn’t previously exist, so long as the precursors for…(Power to give rise to)…those attributes exist. These attributes then become precursors themselves, which become attributes, which become precursors…

Well, metaphysics neither accepts or rejects the idea of evolution.

This would seem to suggest that the efficient cause need not be the maximum in all things, but rather the minimum in all things. Because all that it has to do is to get the ball rolling, so to speak, and evolution will take care of the rest. Attribute giving rise to attribute, ad infinitum.

It depends in what sense and what context one is using the term “efficient cause”. But yes in scientific terms evidently a thing need only have the potential and the right circumstances to give rise to a new nature or physical process. However it does not follow that any inherent power gives rise to its own actuality.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . When you see figures like 1 in 10 to the power of 37 or 120 or even more to articulate facts that if our universe were in any way different we wouldn’t be here and from secular sources without any credible refutation, you really see that there is a God. . . StBenedictLabre . . .

:twocents:

It isn’t about the mathematics in themselves, because God created this as it is with the relationships built into the reality of everything.
It is the mind-boggling size of anything to do with the universe from the very, very, very smallest to the super-collossal and the realization that all this does not need be, but is!
WOW!!
It’s the same argument about the eye; not about some god-of-the-gaps but the sheer and utter wonder of existence.
Every moment, everywhere, with its incomprehensible complexity, it all is. That is huge!!
And, we sleepwalkers, settling for our solitary dreams, need only to awaken to the infinite beauty, grandeur and goodness of creation which reveals our Creator, our eternal Father.
We need to fall in love.
Gazing into and surrendering to the infinite Compassion that contains creation, one Love, a multitude of beings.

 

[e_c]

It’s easy to see how a seed can inherit the power to give rise to an oak tree. But how does a rock for example, inherit the power to give rise to an oak tree? This may seem like a silly question, but at some point in the past the inanimate must have given rise to the animate. A rock (metaphorically speaking) must have given rise to life. If you’re correct, it’s because it had within its nature the power to give rise to life.

This would appear to be an argument for evolution. Attributes can arise where they didn’t previously exist, so long as the precursors for…(Power to give rise to)…those attributes exist. These attributes then become precursors themselves, which become attributes, which become precursors…

This would seem to suggest that the efficient cause need not be the maximum in all things, but rather the minimum in all things. Because all that it has to do is to get the ball rolling, so to speak, and evolution will take care of the rest. Attribute giving rise to attribute, ad infinitum.

You didn’t look at the theses, did you…

Try number 14. We can start working from there.

u.arizona.edu/~aversa/scholastic/24Thomisticpart2.htm

 

[Partinobodycula]

You didn’t look at the theses, did you…

Try number 14. We can start working from there.

Well I did sort of skim them, and even at the website you linked to. But one thing became apparent quite quickly, they’re theses, they’re not proofs. To which you’ll no doubt respond, “Duh, they’re not supposed to be proofs”. To which I would respond, am I then supposed to accept that human souls subsist, while animal souls don’t, simply because Aquinas says so? I’m sorry, I’m a solipsist, I doubt everything that isn’t supported by reason. Now you might think that such a philosophy renders life meaningless. After all, what’s the value in the world if one doubts its very existence? To which I would respond, I don’t doubt its existence, I simply question its nature. And you would be surprised at just how much can be validated by reason. Solipsism, properly contemplated, leads to more than just, I think therefore I am.

 

[Partinobodycula]

Well, metaphysics neither accepts or rejects the idea of evolution.

It depends in what sense and what context one is using the term “efficient cause”. But yes in scientific terms evidently a thing need only have the potential and the right circumstances to give rise to a new nature or physical process. However it does not follow that any inherent power gives rise to its own actuality.

The problem for Catholics in allowing for evolution, is that it pretty much eviscerates all of Aquinas’ Five Ways. It does this by rendering the Fourth and Fifth Ways invalid. If attributes can emerge through a simple process of evolution, then it’s not necessary that attributes find their maximum expression in the source of that evolution, nor that there be need of a designer. And if you remove the Fourth and Fifth Ways from Aquinas’ proofs, then even if you allow for the first three, the conclusion at the end of each one, that "this everyone understands to be God", becomes invalid. Because what’s left after removing the last two Ways, isn’t what Catholics understand to be God. The Five Ways as proof of God, basically stand or fall as one.

So the problem becomes as I laid it out, where do new attributes like life and intelligence come from, if not by a process that we would recognize as evolution?

 

[e_c]

Well I did sort of skim them, and even at the website you linked to. But one thing became apparent quite quickly, they’re theses, they’re not proofs. To which you’ll no doubt respond, “Duh, they’re not supposed to be proofs”. To which I would respond, am I then supposed to accept that human souls subsist, while animal souls don’t, simply because Aquinas says so? I’m sorry, I’m a solipsist, I doubt everything that isn’t supported by reason. Now you might think that such a philosophy renders life meaningless. After all, what’s the value in the world if one doubts its very existence? To which I would respond, I don’t doubt its existence, I simply question its nature. And you would be surprised at just how much can be validated by reason. Solipsism, properly contemplated, leads to more than just, I think therefore I am.

Only reason, eh? Everyone else is just guessing, I suppose. I didn’t know only solipsists used reason for drawing conclusions!

You have too many misconceptions to deal with here. I recommend Feser’s blog, it might be helpful for you.

 

[Partinobodycula]

Only reason, eh?

That’s what I attempt to do. But reasoning applied to situations in which there isn’t sufficient information, can lead to erroneous conclusions. So my overall philosophy is solipsistic. There’s certain information that’s necessarily true. I think therefore I am, for example. From which can reasonably be drawn additional conclusions. But beyond those additional conclusions there are circumstances for which the available information doesn’t permit a reasoned conclusion. So I can quite often come to a conclusion that isn’t correct. But just as you might fall back to a belief in Christ as a foundational truth, I fall back to the position of cogito ergo sum, I think therefore I am. A position that simply says, I don’t know. Oddly enough, from this position I can see the merit in many of the values espoused by Christianity. Which is why it says “Christian Solipsist”. Love thy neighbor is just as rational to me as it is to you.

Everyone else is just guessing, I suppose.

No, everyone else isn’t just guessing. They’re using reasoning, and some of them are doing it amazingly well. Which is why I tend to read on this site, much more than I post. But in our everyday lives of stress, and families, and social communities, it isn’t possible for us to sit down and reason out the meaning of “Life, the universe, and everything”. And so we defer to preconceptions that serve to stave off the oft felt feelings of futility that life seems to visit upon all of us. We set aside the strict adherence to reason, for the sake of assurance. The assurance that life has a purpose. It’s not that people aren’t reasonable, it’s just that people are people. We each suffer the hardships of life in our own ways.

I didn’t know only solipsists used reason for drawing conclusions!

And you probably also didn’t know that a solipsist can find truth in the admonition, to do justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with thy God. But we’re reasonable people, so we can learn.