Source
r/DebateReligion•
hammiesink

To All: Detailed pickings of Aquinas' First Way #6: The First Way Premise 3

NOTE: THIS IS LESS OF A DEBATE THREAD AND MORE OF AN EXPLANATORY THREAD, FOR EASY LATER REFERENCE. THE AIM OF THIS THREAD IS TO GIVE READERS PROPER UNDERSTANDING OF THE ARGUMENT, NOT NECESSARILY TO DEBATE ITS TRUTH VALUE.

In the previous two parts, we learned that Aquinas established that things change, and that whatever is changing is being changed by something else. Now we move on...

Summa Theologica, First Part, Question 2, Article 3

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.

In other words, since something else that is actual is needed to actualize a potential, then the same thing applies to that next thing in the chain. The cold air changes the water into ice, but in turn the compressor in the freezer turns the room temperature air into cold air. And the electricity in turn makes the compressor work. And so on.

To drive home the point, if the next member in the chain is a mixture of potential and actual, then it too requires something else to actualize it's potentials, and so on. The same reasoning applies to each member of the chain if that member is a mixture of potential and actual.

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...

CRUCIAL: Here is the core of where people screw up with this argument. The type of "infinity" he is talking about here is an essentially ordered series, not an accidental one, which is what most people have in mind when they think "infinity". The causal series he is talking about stretches "down" in the present, not back into the past. The argument is vertical, not horizontal. Look again at this line:

...seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover...

To take his example of a hand moving a stick moving a rock, both the stick and rock only move because the first mover, the hand, is moving both of them. When you see the rock moving, you are really seeing the movement of the hand.

If there were no hand, then the stone would not be moving. Or, to put it another way, if the chain of sticks stretched to infinity, then there would in effect be no hand and thus nothing to move the rock. The rock only moves because the hand is somewhere down the chain, pushing the whole thing, in the present.

He emphasizes this with his next phrase:

...as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand.

We know that the staff can't move itself. So if it is moving, then there must be something else that is moving it.

Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other...

So there must be a member on the other end of this essentially ordered chain that drives the whole chain. Remember that a mixture of potentiality and actuality requires a previous member to change it. So since we need a first member at the head of the series, that member must be pure actuality, with no potentiality at all. If it had a mixture of both, then it would just be another "stick" in the essentially ordered series and not the required "hand". Since this agent is operative as we speak, then the argument avoids deism.

This Concludes Part 6

Proceeding from the previous premises, we arrive at something that is pure actuality, with no potentiality at all. But how the heck is this "God"? Read on...

<<<<Back to Part 5...Continue to Part 7>>>>

Posted Jan 19, 2012, 9:07 PM UTC · edited

13111
DrPhillyHumanist | Batmanist | WatchMod | Vigilante | Pickle•

First of all, you've failed to successfully actualize the potential links at the bottom.

Secondly, here's what I thought of when I read this:

The causal series he is talking about stretches "down" in the present, not back into the past. The argument is vertical, not horizontal

I think there is a critical scientific failure in this though process. The stretching "down" in the present must ultimately stretch back to the past, infinitely. The air was cooled by the compressor, powered by electricity, created in a solar power facility, beamed to Earth from the sun, created by a nuclear reaction in the core of the sun, caused by the coalescence of hydrogen gas, and so on, until the beginning of the universe.

6
hammiesinkOP•

Yes, the potential link is messed up. Fear of the spam filter keeps me at bay for the time being. Upvote that shit!

The stretching "down" in the present must ultimately stretch back to the past, infinitely.

Right, but that transfers into an accidentally ordered series, which Aquinas is not interested in. Allow the universe to have popped into existence fully formed ten seconds ago, or allow it to be infinitely old. Either way, the water in the freezer still freezes, and accounting for what causes it to do so right now is what Aquinas is doing.

He's a smart little fuck! He's making his argument as tight as possible, to future-proof it from new empirical discoveries! He was well aware of god-of-the-gaps-style-reasoning that for some reason dazzles modern evangelicals, and even brought this up in one of his writings:

...the suppositions that these astronomers have invented need not necessarily be true; for perhaps the phenomena of the stars are explicable on some other plan not yet discovered by men...

--Sententia de Caelo et Mundo

7
DrPhillyHumanist | Batmanist | WatchMod | Vigilante | Pickle•

If we account only for what is causing ice to freeze right at this very moment then there is not only no need but no possible way for any kind of regression. I'm confused by this.

EDIT: Also, I am continually upvoting your posts. I was just about to log off because I thought my ride was finally ready to go the hell home (she wasn't) when I saw, "OH HAMMIE'S NEW ENTRY UPVOTE AWAY!"

4
hammiesinkOP•

Think about what all the members in the chain are needed to be in place right now, for the water in the ice cube tray to change from liquid to solid:

  1. Water
  2. Freezer compressor
  3. Electricity
  4. Power plant
  5. Boiling water at the power plant
  6. Burning coal underneath the water
  7. Atomic structure of the coal at the power plant
  8. Atomic structure involved in combustion
  9. Quarks in the atomic structure
  10. Weak force sticking the quarks together
  11. Force carriers mediating the weak force
  12. ?

Or whatever. This is not quasi-empirical scientific hypothesizing intended to compete with physics; this just an example. That chain, above, cannot be infinitely long. Somewhere down deep in the coal it must terminate, and it must terminate in something purely actual, with no admixture of potentiality at all.

3
DrPhillyHumanist | Batmanist | WatchMod | Vigilante | Pickle•

Alright, I'll give you that.

I'm still waiting for the part where you start to apply characteristics to this first mover. That's really where Aquinas loses me.

2
topherwhelanagnostic atheist•

Weak force sticking the quarks together

QFT actually states that the elementary forces are an infinite series of virtual particle interactions.

It's possible QFT will be thrown out at some point in the future but, as it stands, your example is an infinite series.

2
GoodDamonIgnostic atheist|Physicalist|Blueberry muffin•

If we account only for what is causing ice to freeze right at this very moment then there is not only no need but no possible way for any kind of regression. I'm confused by this.

I was about to say something similar myself. This is a classic example of intuitive experience being quite a bit different from reality. In Thomas' own example of the hand moving the stick moving the rock, they are not simultaneous, although they certainly appear to be to the naked eye. There is give in the stick, there is give in the hand, and there is even give in the rock; there is no such thing as a perfectly rigid body, which is what true simultaneity would require.

What he thinks is an essentially ordered series really is an accidentally ordered one.

3
hammiesinkOP•

The simultaneity is not essential. What is doing the philosophical work is that each member is merely receiving causal power from its neighbor, and each member cannot do anything without that previous member in place. The atoms of the coal won't do anything, indeed won't even exist, without the quarks and weak force in place.

3
dVntagnostic atheist | theological noncognitivist | anti-theist•

Right, but that transfers into an accidentally ordered series, which Aquinas is not interested in.

What is an "accidentally ordered series"? I haven't seen you use this term before.

Allow the universe to have popped into existence fully formed ten seconds ago, or allow it to be infinitely old. Either way, the water in the freezer still freezes, and accounting for what causes it to do so right now is what Aquinas is doing.

I can't help but see this as anything but, "Remain dutifully ignorant of thermodynamics, and anything is possible!" ..who can argue with this?

He's a smart little fuck! He's making his argument as tight as possible, to future-proof it from new empirical discoveries! He was well aware of god-of-the-gaps-style-reasoning that for some reason dazzles modern evangelicals, and even brought this up in one of his writings:

...the suppositions that these astronomers have invented need not necessarily be true; for perhaps the phenomena of the stars are explicable on some other plan not yet discovered by men...

--Sententia de Caelo et Mundo

This is a god-of-the-gaps argument; argument from ignorance; typical religious stuff that we've all seen and thought about countless times and come to the same conclusion.

I truly don't understand you Hammiesink. Thomas Aquinas bluffed. And, as any poker player will tell you, a successful bluff is as good as a stacked hand.

The profundity of Aquinas' argument -- his bluff -- is logical identical to the following ploy: (Even/especially you should at least appreciate the self-deprecating way in which I make this point.)

Person1(Pedant Theist/pseudo-theist/defacto-theist; you): "I bet I can beat you in a game!"

Person2(Typical atheist; me): "lawl, stupid theist. I'm a fucking boss; Challenge accepted"

Person1: "Ok, here's how the game goes: I bet I can think of the largest number possible. I suggest a number, and if you want to argue that you know one higher than the one I give, you have to count to it."

Person2: "What ever, let's do this, Sky Wizard Slave!"

Person1: "4"

Person2: "lol...easy. 1,2,3,4,FIVE!."

Person1: "Ok then...14"

Person2: "lrn2think, noobtard! 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,FIFTEEN!"

Person1: "Alright... 14,492,657,893,876. Checkmate Atheists!"

Person2: "...Go fuck yourself."

As it is clearly elaborated, the only mistake one can make in arguing against these Thomist Ways, is doing it in the first place. The very act of discussing something like Thomism is to cede a victory of attrition.

2
ThePantsParty•

The very act of discussing something like Thomism is to cede a victory of attrition.

Except without discussing it you cannot demonstrate how anything that preceded the above sentence is in anyway accurate or relevant to the argument (as you haven't). If a creationist said, "The very act of discussing something like evolution is to cede a victory of attrition.", I really doubt you would find that a reasonable retort to someone who just finished making the case for it.

3
hammiesinkOP•

I suggest not responding to dVnt. This is what I think of when I quickly glaze over at his "comments". There is no reason to encourage substance-less commenting.

4
dVntagnostic atheist | theological noncognitivist | anti-theist•

You don't seem to understand my analogy.

Except without discussing it you cannot demonstrate how anything that preceded the above sentence is in anyway accurate or relevant to the argument

This is incorrect. The game which person1 wants to play is inherently fallacious. That was the whole point of the analogy, the game can go on forever; all person1 has to do is keep saying numbers, but person two has to count to these numbers. -- victory via attrition. There is no such thing as the highest number -- it is a false premise. The analog to this is the false dichotomy between actual things and potential things. If one accepts this dichotomy, then I'm sure one can logically prove the assertions of Thomas Aquinas. Just like one can prove anything with the appropriate presuppositions. I don't understand why this is so appealing to supposedly sophisticated philosophers such as Hammiesink. ...Well that's not true, I have an opinion why, and I've elaborated on it many times.

3
pconwellphysicalist | humanist•

You have been added to the "approved submitters" and shouldn't have anything get caught in the spam filter.

1
hammiesinkOP•

Thanks. I thought I was already, but I noticed that when I edit a brand new post too soon before any votes, it vanishes.

1
pconwellphysicalist | humanist•

Odd, that shouldn't happen - but yeah, you were already on the list... so I don't know what happened.

1
DeusExMockinYaKopimism•

First Way 3: First Way with a Vengeance

3
hammiesinkOP•

Nice!

3
DeusExMockinYaKopimism•

I keep Die Harding your posts because it's funny and let's me go back to them later and read through it once the dust has settled, so to speak.

1
lawyersgunsmoneyEmperor Vainglorious|Atheistic Bastard•

Happy reddit B'day!!! :)

1
Citukeಠ_ರೃ False Flag•

Thanks for all the work, that's all.

3
hammiesinkOP•

You're welcome.

3
tannatwe're here•

CRUCIAL: Here is the core of where people screw up with this argument. The type of "infinity" he is talking about here is an essentially ordered series, not an accidental one, which is what most people have in mind when they think "infinity".

I have to say that I don't understand how this goes together.

We only need work to actualize - nothing actual or potential. Actualization is work, or energy and energy is movement. Movement has always been the same. (I knew you said that actualization can be materialization also, but that is an entirely different quantity, so I stay with the movement-actualization, which can't affect an items' existence for obvious reasons.

Work is fundamentally replaceable, we don't care what work and what tools are used. An item can be actualized into the exact same actual by an unlimited variety of non-separable work-packages. there is no difference, as long as the work is done.

So why does he say that we need an actual to actualize? And how can he construct an essentially ordered series when each actualization is replaceable by the same work from another source?

There is no fingerprint to the actualization done.

1
hammiesinkOP•

I honestly hardly understand anything you've said here.

So why does he say that we need an actual to actualize?

That is answered here.

And how can he construct an essentially ordered series when each actualization is replaceable by the same work from another source?

I don't understand this question.

1
tannatwe're here•

That is answered [1] here.

Not really, but i'll check it up elsewhere.

I don't understand this question.

I thought you needed certain specific things to be dependent on each other in series to have an essentially ordered series.

But work is movement and ultimately, each sum of actualizations is replaceable with innumerable combinations of actualizations doing the same work. The tools for transferring the movement are passive and always replaceable.

1
[deleted]•

So why does he say that we need an actual to actualize?

Surely you don't think potential things do work. Let's consider the work done in a cue ball's collision with an eight ball. Surely this work is not accomplished when a cue ball sits there having there mere potential to impact the eight ball. Rather, the work is only accomplished if the cue ball actually impacts the eight ball.

1
tannatwe're here•

Surely you don't think potential things do work. Let's consider the work done in a cue ball's collision with an eight ball. Surely this work is not accomplished when a cue ball sits there having there mere potential to impact the eight ball. Rather, the work is only accomplished if the cue ball actually impacts the eight ball.

The actualization (or the work) don't even care if it is a cue ball there. The actualization done is pure work (movement) the tools that may be used to direct or channel the movement are only replaceable vessels with no impact or fingerprint on the actualization.

1
[deleted]•

The actualization (or the work) don't even care if it is a cue ball there.

You're mistaken: non-existent cue balls cannot do work.

1
tannatwe're here•

You're mistaken: non-existent cue balls cannot do work.

I promise I'm not, for the work to be done the cue ball isn't needed.

You can insert any passive tool to transfer work, you can even make up ways to transfer work without channeling medium if you manage to do it with irradiation. If you have a perfect impulse, no net work is diverted to your cue ball or stick or whatever. Since the distinction between actual and potential is only work in my example above there is no need to actualize anything else. And movement is relative, so what is potential or actual is really nothing more than an attitude question.

1
lawyersgunsmoneyEmperor Vainglorious|Atheistic Bastard•

Hammie, just a suggestion, if I could, when you make your last post in this series would you mind putting links on that one to the previous posts? It would make it easier to flip between each one if they were all in one place. Also, I want to say Thanks! for all the effort, I know that I appreciate it, and I hope others do as well.

1
hammiesinkOP•

Good idea, and you're welcome!

1
Pastasky•

In other words, since something else that is actual is needed to actualize a potential

I still don't buy that. What actualizes the change when liquid water turns to gas in deep space?

What actualizes the change when a quantum event happens?

Saying "They must exist, so something must actualize their existence" doesn't remedy that, because your argument demands that there is something there actualizing those two changes, if there isn't, then the argument is significantly weakened, because instead of "all change" it gets demoted to "some change"

1
hammiesinkOP•

What actualizes the change when liquid water turns to gas in deep space?

The movement from atmosphere to space. The spaceship or shoving it out the airlock or whatever. Once it turns to gas, that's it. It's done. Until something else comes along to further actualize more of its potencies.

The actualization of the potential of something to exist is necessary, because we are accounting for change and for change to even occur the thing has to exist. So a full accounting of change will also include an accounting of existence. First and Second go together.

2
[deleted]•

The movement from atmosphere to space...

I think it would be more accurate to say 'the pressure of the water' or something like that.

1
hammiesinkOP•

But for it to change from liquid to vapor, it needs to be moved to the new location.

1
[deleted]•

Sure, but it's not the movement of location which is the cause of its boiling, except insofar as the movement of location reduces the pressure it is under, and insofar as that increases the relative pressure exerted by the water, which vaporizes it.

1
Pastasky•

The movement from atmosphere to space. The spaceship or shoving it out the airlock or whatever.

I disagree. First of all aren't potential - actual chains essentially ordered? Once the spaceship shoves the water into space, it will take some time for the water to turn to gas, during that time we can destroy the spaceship. If the space ship is actualizing the change of the water from liquid into vapor, how can it do that if it doesn't exist?

Once it turns to gas, that's it. It's done.

Nope! It will then turn into a fine dust of ice particles. What actualizes this change?

The actualization of the potential of something to exist is necessary, because we are accounting for change and for change to even occur the thing has to exist. So a full accounting of change will also include an accounting of existence. First and Second go together.

This still doesn't address the fact that you can't identify what is actualizing a quantum event, even though your argument expects there to be such a thing. If there is no such thing doesn't it break the premise?

1
hammiesinkOP•

Low pressure (in fact, none) is being applied to the water from the outside. In turn, the low pressure of outer space is being actualized by, say, the size of the universe. The universe's existence is actualized by...?

Quantum events are either deterministic, or not. It's anybody's guess at this point. If so, then the chain continues. If not, then the particle still needs to exist, because we need to account for change, and accounting for change requires accounting for the existence of the thing changing, which merges with the Second Way.

1
[deleted]•

[deleted]

1
Pastasky•

Low pressure (in fact, none) is being applied to the water from the outside.

Its the other way around. It is the continued presence (pressure) of other molecules that prevents water from vaporizing. In the absence of such pressure, nothing is being applied to the water, so the water turns to vapor.

Low pressure (in fact, none) is being applied to the water from the outside.

No. No pressure is being applied.

If not, then the particle still needs to exist

No. If not, then evidently somethings can change with out being actualized.

1
Pastasky•

I was wondering if we could continue this discussion, because I want to see how it resolves.

With liquid water in space, it will change to a gas then a fine dust of solid ice particles.

These changes occur due to the internal structure of water. Low pressure does not cause this to occur rather, this change is what water is always "trying" to do. On earth the air pressure counter acts this.

As far as I can tell, the water is changing, and nothing except the water is actualizing it's own potential.

Or for a similar example, imagine a plucked spring (say an antenna on a space ship) vibrating in space. The antenna is constantly changing it's acceleration as it oscillates.

In both these cases the cause of the change is the internal structure of the object at hand. Are they not cases of things actualizing their own potentials?

1
booty_of_a_hoodlum•

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...

If there were no hand, then the stone would not be moving. Or, to put it another way, if the chain of sticks stretched to infinity, then there would in effect be no hand and thus nothing to move the rock. The rock only moves because the hand is somewhere down the chain, pushing the whole thing, in the present.

This argument is hopelessly circular. Take the hand moving the stick example. If I say, the causes go on for infinity, I am not denying the hand or trying to replace it with an infinity of sticks; I'm merely saying, something is moving the hand, and something else is moving the thing that is moving the hand and so on...

If Aquinas is right that no event happens without a cause then it is not at all required that there be a first cause for there to be any events; only that for any given event there is a previous cause. This is clearly satisfied (and possibly only satisfied) in a case where causes go back to infinity, since for every event there is a previous event that caused it.

1
hammiesinkOP•

If I say, the causes go on for infinity, I am not denying the hand or trying to replace it with an infinity of sticks; I'm merely saying, something is moving the hand, and something else is moving the thing that is moving the hand and so on...

And then you are moving out of the analogy into the argument itself. The muscles move the hand, the neurons move the muscles, the electrons move the neurons, and so on down down and down.

1
booty_of_a_hoodlum•

Right, the problem isn't with infinity existing in reality, but with your analogy.

So do you agree that given everything you've described about causes and events up until this point and my response, there is nothing impossible about causes going back to infinity in reality but it's only impossible in your analogy which presupposes that there must be a first cause?

1
hammiesinkOP•

See here.

1
booty_of_a_hoodlum•

Not sure I completely understand what you are saying. Tell me if I get this wrong?

We are trying to account for ice freezing right now. And allegedly any account of why the ice is frozen right now is incomplete unless we invoke a highly specific god. Is this correct?

Addendum: If the above is correct, then any complete account of why the ice is frozen that doesn't invoke god, disproves this argument. Is this correct?

1