Why must unmoved mover be pure act?

[Mickey3456987]

Why must unmoved mover be pure act ? Why can’t this being have some potency that will never be actualized but exist eternally along with unmoved mover itself for eternity?

 

[FiveLinden]

Words requiring definition for an intelligent (or any reasonable) answer: ‘unmoved’ ‘mover’ ‘potency’ ‘actualise’ ‘exist’ ‘eternal’ and ‘eternity’. An explanation of ‘why’ and ‘must’ would also be helpful.

 

[GiftofMercy]

Why must unmoved mover be pure act ?

I dont understand , can you explain a little more please.
Does it have to do with this thread of yours?

Why unmoved mover? Philosophy

On hierarchical sort of series of changer why this series must have first changer ? And if so, how do we know this first changer must lack any potential?

 

[IWantGod]

Why must unmoved mover be pure act ?

To be pure actuality is to lack no possible actuality in it’s being that is true to it’s nature. Everything that it could possibly be is perfectly actual.

Basically if it lacks actuality in any way it implies that it has potential to be actualised and therefore there is a part of it’s being that does not necessarily exist. But if by the word unmoved mover one means it is ultimate reality or the source of all existence (by source i mean it is the existential ground of all beings other than itself) it cannot by definition lack existence or be unnecessary in any way because the ground of all things necessarily exists and is the absolute antithesis of nothing.

In other-words that which is the reason for why there is not absolutely nothing, cannot itself be in any way absolutely nothing. Which is just another way of saying that it cannot be existentially limited since it is the difference between something and nothing at all.

 

[Babaganoush]

So you’re saying it could move or change but it doesn’t? Why would you assume it didn’t change if it can?

 

[STT]

Why must unmoved mover be pure act ?

The first cause doesn’t need to be pure act if He can change Himself. In fact, the act of creation requires a decision. The state of decision is a potential state in which the first cause changes Himself, from not decided to decided.

 

[Gorgias]

The state of decision is a potential state in which the first cause changes Himself, from not decided to decided.

Except that God lives in the Eternal ‘Now’, so He never ‘changes’ or ‘decides’ in a progression of time. So, no – God doesn’t change, or move from potential to act.

 

[STT]

Except that God lives in the Eternal ‘Now’, so He never ‘changes’ or ‘decides’ in a progression of time. So, no – God doesn’t change, or move from potential to act.

God cannot create in eternal picture since He cannot decide.

 

[Gorgias]

God cannot create in eternal picture since He cannot decide.

Says you.

In an eternal context, is decision (in the way we think about it – as proceeding from ratiocination) even possible? If not, then hinging ‘act’ on ‘decision’ isn’t reasonable.